Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope

Beware of the slippery slope! The slippery slope warning is a common argument raised against recognizing same-sex marriage (SSM). The logic behind this argument, as it is utilized against SSM, is as follows. A will or might occur, therefore B will inevitably follow, B is wrong, so that makes A wrong (since B followed A) and A cannot or should not occur. Put another way, once one exception is made, what’s to stop from making the next exception, and then the next one?

Opponents to SSM argue that if the government begins to recognize SSM what will stop them from legalizing polygamy or incest? Because I am trying to approach the SSM argument from a legal standpoint by discussing what could be legal justifications for denying a particular group of people (gays) a fundamental right (marriage), I would ask that we look beyond the disgust or yuck factors involved with polygamy and incest. It may be true that these types of relationships have not gained as much social acceptance in America as homosexual relationships have, but these feelings, like feelings towards homosexuality, may evolve. Furthermore, if we argue that dislike or the yuck feelings don’t justify prohibiting SSM, then we can’t allow those same unpleasant feelings be the sole justification for denying the legal recognition of polygamous or incestuous relationships.

With that said, here is a Canadian parliament member’s slippery slope-polygamy warning.

"[W]hy is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate . . . other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone.” If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring . . . . [t]hat is utter legal nonsense."

Let’s see who is being nonsensical. Let’s examine why legalizing same-sex marriage should be considered on its own merits, and why extending same-sex couples the right to marry will not inevitably lead to legal polygamy.

If it is true that legalizing same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamous marriages, then it must also be true that there is not a government interest sufficient to justify a continued ban on polygamy. Because remember, to interfere with a fundamental constitutional right, the government must have a compelling interest, and the interference caused by the government must be necessary to advance that interest. So if same-sex marriage (marriage = fundamental constitutional right) should be permitted because banning it (interference) is not necessary in order to advance a compelling government interest, is it necessary to ban polygamy in order to advance any particular government interest? Well how about protecting children by preventing child abuse, or preventing the exploitation of women? What about curbing welfare fraud or tax evasion. In July of this year, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid called polygamy a form of organized crime. Reid said that polygamous communities conceal crimes such as child abuse and statutory rape, and teenage and preteen girls are being forced to marry older men and bare their children. He also said that these communities are committing tax evasion and welfare fraud. These problems, enumerated by Reid, create victims, and these victims are telling their stories, and they are seeking help through “polygamy- survivor” support groups. Some might argue that monogamous married couples commit welfare fraud and tax evasion, and would probably even argue that monogamous couples abuse their children, and monogamous relationships aren’t prohibited. That is true. But such an argument ignores the fact that while these problems may occur in monogamous relationships, it is not the monogamous relationship itself that causes child abuse or tax fraud. On the other hand, child abuse or welfare fraud have become symptoms, or side effects, of polygamous marriage and polygamous communities. Still, setting these issues aside, polygamy presents other problems. Marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. Changing the amount of people involved in a legal marriage would, unlike SSM, complicate legal administration matters. These administrative matters concern issues such as inheritance, parental rights, or insurance benefits. Which one of the several wives will get what when a husband passes, or what if one or more of the wives or the husband want a divorce? The system and the surrounding legal devices are designed for two people. While these issues can be resolved and the law could be altered to accommodate polygamous marriage, the administrative problems, coupled with the abuse and economic crimes, are clear obstacles between the legalization of SSM and the so called “inevitable” downward slope towards legalizing polygamy.

Okay, so what about incest? Again, the slippery slope argument is as follows. If SSM is legalized because there is no justification for a continued ban, then incest marriage will be legalized because there is also no justification for a continued ban. Well, is there a justification for continuing to ban incest? To begin with, and herein lies the problem with the incest discussion, what type of incest are we talking about? Seriously. Parent/child? Brother/sister? Cousin/cousin? Parent/child marriage bans can be justified on the grounds that one must reach the age of consent to be married. I’m sure that no one would challenge age requirements for marrying unless they aren’t concerned about child abuse. The common argument against permitting any incestuous marriage is that the inbreeding is said to increase the risk of birth defects in the children these relationships produce. This argument though, is coming under attack. These conclusions face criticism in regards to prohibiting cousin marriages because the “increased risk” is not so increased. (Sibling marriages are still believed to cause a significantly higher risk of birth defects.)

Another justification advanced for prohibiting incestuous marriages is the destruction on the “family” such a marriage can cause. Incest relationships are often conducted in secrecy and once revealed can be destructive to family harmony. Also, there is an interest in maintaining this status quo because it is necessary to maintain the family unit. Here is an expression of these worries.

Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."

And about the benefits of the incest taboo at large.

The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.

Whether these justifications are or will remain government interests which are compelling enough to justify a continued ban on incestuous marriages remains to be seen. But does that mean SSM will lead to legalizing incestuous marriage? Three state Supreme Courts have ruled in favor of legalizing SSM while seven states allow cousin marriages with restrictions and 19 allow cousin marriages without restriction. It seems that legalizing SSM can’t lead to certain types of incest because incest is already legal in many states. The fact of the matter is that each relationship, be it same-sex, polygamous, or incestuous, is considered on its own merits. As laws prohibiting these relationships are challenged, they will be upheld or invalidated because there is, or isn’t a proper justification for doing either. Don’t be frightened by the slippery slope scare. It’s a powerful rhetorical tool, but the logic is not entirely sound. Consider each argument separately, and decide for yourself. Thank you.