SSM, NONTRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, AND POLYGAMY: R.K. Becker replies to Mark Miller and Eugene Volokh

Mark states that the examples I give do not hold because "there are significant differences between the arguments (both legal and moral) for SSM and the arguments for polygamy." Of course there are. But he does not provide any answer to the question I asked: why the arguments for polygamy, if made and presented in a serious movement, will be less persuasive to the general public (and, ultimately, the courts) than the arguments for SSM? I believe Mark when he says that he believes marriage is for two and no more, but, as I stated in my other post, to say that we personally draw the line now does not preclude others from moving that line later.

Particularly when the reason Mark gives for limiting marriage to two people is every bit as arbitrary as the reason the average SSM opponent on the street gives for limiting marriage to those of opposite genders. Just as the average SSM opponent simply asserts that marriage is between a man and a woman, Mark simply asserts that it's for no more than two people. Why should we have any confidence that the latter is any less fragile down the line than the former? Mark simply states that he believes that the latter is central to the institution while the former is not. But this is certainly not the case historically, as polygamy has been far more common in human culture than any kind of same-sex marriage. Obviously, it is the opposite-sex nature of marriage that has been the more "central" to the institution. How can Mark, or anyone else, be so certain that the less historically central definition of marriage will stand while the more central definition is discarded?

Indeed, Mark's argument for the binary nature of marriage is based on the same thing that most people use when arguing against SSM--tradition. There has been no tradition more universal to human society than the idea that marriage is between opposite genders. What many don't see is that by rejecting the appeal to tradition in regard to preserving the historical definition of marriage, we by extension must also reject appeal to tradition in regard to anything else. If SSM is legalized, any such argument has now been effectively killed. It is this more than anything else that puts us on the "slippery slope."

Eugene Volokh does make a very good point about the greater social insularity of those presently arguing for polygamy. I think, however, that while this may well slow down the move toward polygamy, it will not be sufficient to prevent it from eventually being legalized, unless the negative effects of SSM surface before the polygamy movement is able to move into the mainstream.
posted by Eve at 4:30 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home