Let’s assume there is no slippery slope when it comes to legalizing gay marriage. In other words, many people find the idea offensive that just because gay marriage is legalized, our society will be forced into legalizing and accepting polygamy and maybe other types of group marriage. Let’s assume this will not happen because these types of relationships aren’t in the best interest of society and don’t protect children. And maybe they are just too darn complicated to legislate. Once we drop that argument, what’s left?
Maybe primarily these:
- Marriage is primarily about procreation and protecting children and same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate.
- A two-parent, two-sexes household is best for children.
This NPR interview with Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution primarily argues that the slippery slope argument doesn’t matter and they make their cases for or against on different grounds.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/31/154064922/would-gay-marriage-lead-to-legal-polygamy
You see that Nimocks argues that marriage is a child-centered institution and the government interest is primarily with child welfare policy.
{“NIMOCKS: Sure. And one of the reasons that proponents of marriage and maintaining marriage between a man and a woman believe that is because by so doing it stays as a child-centered institution and not one that’s concentrated on the desires of adults. And if marriage is redefined to be about any two adults who are in love or committed to each other and it’s about adults and not the kids that flow from procreative relationships, then from a policy standpoint you have to ask the question, then why can’t three or more adults be just as loving and committed to each other?
And that’s the question primarily that’s being raised. If it’s about the procreative relationships that produced and raised the next generation and we keep it a child-centered institution, then the risk of polygamy and plural marriage does not exist.
MARTIN: Is it really a child-centered institution, though, in that we don’t deny marriage to people who do not intend to procreate or who are beyond the age when they logically would do so?
NIMOCKS: Absolutely. We don’t deny them that opportunity but it goes to the fundamental question of why do we have marriage laws. Why do we issue marriage licenses? And when you look on a marriage license, there are two requirements, basically – that you have to be of age and of the opposite sex. The government doesn’t ask you if you’re in love, if you’re committed.
And there’s a reason that those things are not on a marriage license – because the government’s interest is in what happens from procreative relationships between men and women. And that’s the thrust of it.”}
Of course, one could argue that same-sex couples can be parents through fostering and adoption and that for some children a same-sex household would be far preferable to a group home or unstable, unsafe home with one or more biological parents; and therefore, children should be protected in these households by laws that protect and benefit these domestic partnerships.
But I if legal marriage was primarily structured to nurture and protect children, why doesn’t the government require a parenting aptitude test or parenting license for couples before they marry? Wouldn’t that better protect children?
Ripening Thoughts 