The Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage

I'm going to play armchair attorney here. I think the lawyer who was attempting to defend California's Proposition 8, the one that voters passed that defined a marriage in the state as between one man and one woman, was quite feeble. Charles Cooper, the attorney who was arguing the case in the U.S. Supreme Court, tried to justify denying marriage to gay couples by stating that the creation of marriage is supposed to encourage procreation, which gay people obviously can't achieve. He was rightly laughed off by the justices. They easily swatted away that argument by noting multple examples of infertile couples and elderly couples who obviously can't have children. Another way of looking at it is that one doesn't need a marriage for procreation anyway.

The defense also argued that raising children with one male and one female parent is best for their well being. Again that is a very weak statement to bring in front of such a consequential case. No less than the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that children brought up by gay couples is no worse off than ones raised by heterosexual couples. So there goes that line of reasoning.

What I haven't heard anybody say is what will happen to other forms of marriages when gay marriage is eventually legalized in this country, as I think it inevitably will. Right now, homosexuals say they deserve to marry each other because they love each other, just like their heterosexuals counterparts. Okay I'm fine with two people who are in love wanting to get married. But what happens when three or more people say they love each other. When you can no longer define marriage as between one man and one woman, has the institution of marriage been destroyed?

Throughout human history there have always been cultures where, usually, one man has had more than one wife. In fact it has only been in recent times that monogamy has become idealized in marriage. Think of the old Chinese or Middle Eastern rulers with their mulititude of wives, or harems, or concubines. Here in the U.S., the Mormon Church is well known for having a history of allowing polygamy, with its founder Joseph Smith said to have more than fifty wives.

If we can no longer define marriage as between one man and one woman, then where does this end? If you pass laws stating that marriage can only between two non related people, regardless of gender, won't polygamists feel they are being discriminated against? Won't they want the same federal rights and benefits as couple marriages? Aren't their civil rights being trampled on too? I just wish somebody can address this issue. I don't mind if gay couples have all the same rights as heterosexual couples. They can be considered to be in a civil union, as many states have already done. Just don't redefine marriage to accommodate this new family unit. If we do, then there is no end to how many different ways people will want to push the limits of families all in the name of civil rights.