[ + ] Text [ – ]

By Evan Wolfson: Evan Wolfson responds to a reader's personal email regarding the argument of polygamy

Freedom to Marry
October 13, 2005

Mr. Wolfson,

I just read your article, "Opposition: Countering a right-wing claim to the 'slippery slope' argument" in which you debunk the claim that in the Netherlands polygamy (or possibly even polandry) is now allowed. I accept your response, but I don't think that you addressed the "slippery slope" argument at all. The problem is that if the courts say that society must accept same-sex couples, what would stop the court from ruling that there is no magic to marital pairings — why not marriages of 3, 4, 5 ... You are a lawyer. Couldn't a constitutional argument be made that individuals have the right to marry whom (and as many simultaneously) as they choose. I believe that if the courts define marriage, rather than society, there will be a backlash that will make the 32 years since Roe v. Wade pale in comparison.

I waited until after making the above comments to say that I am very much in favor of same-sex marriage. During the last Presidential campaign I made a speech (as a mock Presidential candidate) to a club in support of same-sex marriage. The text of that speech is appended to this email if you are interested in reading it.

I wrote this email so that you would know that there are many people who support same-sex marriage, but do not want the issue decided in the courts. The Massachusetts case doesn't upset me so much because it is only one state and the legislature and electorate did have a chance to respond to the ruling and essentially decided to let it stand. I believe that society has a right to define marriage and will fight (politically) to protect that right.

Sincerely,
Eric VanArsdall
Bradenton, FL

 

---

 

Response to Mr. VanArsdall from Evan Wolfson:

Thanks for your note, Eric.

A few points:

• This civil rights debate is not about "defining" marriage. It is about removing a restriction from who can enter into marriage, a restriction for which government can show (and has shown) no sufficient justificiation. Marriage is not "defined" by who is barred from it. When gay couples marry, they do not change the rules, responsibilities, or respect they or others take on in marriage; in fact, they seek to share in the same "definition" of marriage. No one else's marriage has been "redefined" in Spain, Canada, Holland, Belgium, or Massachusetts just because some more couples and their kids are now sharing in marriage and its protections.
• Courts have their role to play in our American constitutional system, and that is a good thing. Sometimes politicians, legislatures, the executive, and even the majority get it wrong, and some things (i.e., the constitutional command of equality, basic individual freedoms, etc.) should not be put up to a vote.
• There is not more a "slippery slope" here than there was when we ended race restrictions on who could marry whom, or ended the legal subordination of women in marriage (despite the claims by opponents of equality then that these changes would lead to a parade of horribles). Whatever reasons government may adduce to justify a restriction on number (equally enforced for everyone, gay or non-), they clearly are not the same as the meritless reasons used to deny gay Americans the freedom to marry even the one person they love (a right accorded to their non-gay brothers and sisters). The attempt to divert to discussions of polygamy, etc., are, indeed, diversions from the question here: what reason does the government have for denying these couples what other couples have.

You can read more of my thoughts on these points and others on our website, www.freedomtomarry.org, or in my book, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry.

— Evan

RETURN to original post.