Will gay marriage lead to polygamy? "If we take the step of
allowing gay marriages," we are told, "we will slide down a
slippery slope to polygamy." For the most part, gay-marriage
advocates have been flustered trying to respond to this argument.
Often, we respond with something dismissive like, "Don't be
ridiculous!" Slippery-slope arguments must be scrutinized with care
because the public often believes them and because they divert
attention from the core issue: whether gay marriage itself would be
a good or bad thing. While the polygamy argument has some
superficial appeal, it ultimately doesn't work.
Slippery-slope arguments take the following form: "Proposal X
contains within it a principle. That principle not only supports
Proposal X but would also support Proposal Y. An honest person
supporting Proposal X must therefore also support Proposal Y. While
Proposal X may or may not be bad in itself, Proposal Y would surely
be very bad. So to avoid adopting Proposal Y, we must not adopt
Proposal X."
Substitute "gay marriage" for Proposal X and "polygamous
marriage" for Proposal Y and you have a slippery-slope argument
against gay marriage.
There are three possible stock responses to every slippery-slope
argument. First, one might argue that the supposedly horrible
destination(s) down at the bottom of the slope are not so bad, so
we need not fear the slide. Second, one could argue that the slope
may slide both ways, so that if we do not take the step
proposed we may be in danger of sliding down the other side of the
policy hill, which would be bad. Third, one could argue that we
will not slide down the slippery slope if we take the step proposed
because there is a principled stopping point preventing us from
reaching the bottom.
In the gay marriage debate, the first stock response would
involve arguing that polygamy is unobjectionable. That's an
unattractive reply for reasons I'll explain below in connection
with response three. The second stock response would involve
claiming that if we repress gay marriage, there is nothing to stop
us from prohibiting other marriages, like those involving people of
different races or infertile people. This second response is the
kind of argument lawyers love to make, but is not likely to impress
many people as a reason to support same-sex marriage.
It's the third response - that there is a principled stopping
point preventing the slide toward polygamy - that best refutes the
slippery-slope argument. The argument for gay marriage is indeed an
argument for a liberalization of marriage rules. But it is not a
call to open marriage to anyone and everyone, any more than the
fight against anti-miscegenation laws was a call to open marriage
to anyone and everyone.
So, formulating the principled stopping-point, we should ask why
the recognition of a new form of monogamous marriage would lead to
the revival of polygamous marriage, which has been rejected in most
societies that once practiced it? What is "the principle"
supporting gay marriage that will lead us to accept multi-partner
marriage?
One possible principle uniting the two is that gay marriage,
like polygamous marriage, extends marriage beyond partners who may
procreate as partners. But that doesn't work because
procreation is already not a requirement of marriage. Sterile
opposite-sex couples have already taken that step down the slope
for us.
A second possible principle uniting gay marriage and polygamous
marriage is that both exalt adult love and needs as the basis for
marriage. Yet this step down the slope has also already been taken
by straight couples. Marriage for the past century or so in the
West has become companionate, based on love and commitment. Among
straight (and gay) couples, children are a common but not necessary
element of the arrangement. So even if gay marriage were justified
solely by the love same-sex partners have for one another,
recognizing such relationships would be more analogous to taking a
step to one side on a slope already partially descended, not an
additional step down the slope.
Still, how do we avoid polygamy? Here is where many advocates of
gay marriage run into trouble. If we claim that gay couples must be
allowed to marry simply because they love each other, there is
indeed no principled reason to reject multi-partner marriages.
Multiple partners in a relationship are capable of loving each
other.
But satisfying individual needs is not "the principle"
supporting gay marriage. Instead, gay-marriage advocates should
argue that any proposal for the expansion of marriage must be good
both (1) for the individuals involved and (2) for the
society in which they live. Gay marriage meets both of these
criteria. The case for polygamous marriage is distinguishable (and
weaker) on both counts, especially the second.
On the first issue - the effect of recognition on the
individuals involved - the deprivation to gays of the gay marriage
ban is greater than the deprivation to polygamists of the polygamy
ban. A polygamist may still marry someone if we ban polygamy; he
simply may not marry many someones. The deprivation to the
polygamist is large, especially if polygamy involves the exercise
of his religious faith, but not total. The gay person, however, has
no realistic choice of a mate available under a gay-marriage ban.
The deprivation is total.
Further, there is no "polygamous orientation" causing a person
to need the close companionship of multiple partners (though some
people may prefer it). There is, however, a homosexual orientation,
causing a person to need the close companionship of a same-sex
partner. The ban on polygamous marriage is the denial of a
preference, perhaps a strong one; the ban on gay marriage is the
denial of personhood itself.
On the second issue - the effect of recognition on society - the
differences between gay marriage and polygamous marriage are more
pronounced. There is ample evidence that people who live in stable,
committed couples are healthier, happier, and wealthier than those
who are single. Gay marriage is a good idea because it will benefit
not only the gay couple but their families, friends, neighbors, and
taxpayers whose burdens to care for the gay partners singly would
be greater.
While multi-partner marriages might benefit the partners
involved, the much greater potential for jealousy and rivalry among
the partners make for a volatile arrangement, reducing the expected
benefits to them and to everyone else. In a multi-partner marriage,
it may be unclear who has primary caretaking responsibility if a
partner becomes sick or injured; there is no such uncertainty in a
two-person marriage. While we have some evidence that children do
well when raised by same-sex couples, we have no evidence they do
well when raised in communal living arrangements. Since
multi-partner marriages will almost always take the form of one man
having many wives, they present special risks of exploitation and
subordination of women, which is inconsistent with our society's
commitment to sex equality.
Perhaps none of these considerations is a decisive argument
against polygamous marriages. But at the very least they suggest
that gay marriage and polygamous marriage present very different
issues. Each should be evaluated on its own merits, not treated as
if one is a necessary extension of the other.