A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on December 12th, 2008 in Progressive Faith

Jazz Shaw is looking at the possible Constitutional arguments for same-sex marriage. Almost as interesting as Shaw’s arguments are the comments afterwards. Like this:

The problem with using the 14th and Loving to force states to allow gay marriage is the slippery slope issue. What legal justification would remain against polygamy or incestuous marriages, between consenting adults, to name two other marriage types currently disallowed?

Ugh. Obviously, there are some who would want to see either incest or polygamy legalized, so it is a very far-fetched, but possibly legitimate argument. Megan Smith sidesteps that in her argument to support same-sex marriage. In fact, her argument – and that of Newsweek’s cover story by Lisa Miller – would tend to play into it. If marriage is based on “mutual pleasure”, then anyone who finds the arrangement “pleasurable” should be allowed to formalize their relationship as marriage. Or so the argument goes.

But the argument is not over an unmitigated right to marriage. There is no such a thing as an unlimited right. The argument is over where to draw that limit and who gets to determine it. That is why it is such a difficult discussion.

If the argument being made is that “I should be able to marry whoever I want”, then it is, indeed, difficult to exclude polygamy and incest from the list of crimes that should be repealed. But let’s be clear about what has made these practices illegal – historically, both polygamy and incest occurred when one person was an adult and the other was a minor. So long as the legalization of either practice did not preclude the prosecution for violation of pedophilia laws, then objections are difficult to come by.

This is especially true in the case of polygamy, which was the natural way of things for most of history. Miller dates the sixth century as being the time when monogamy became the accepted practice. I’m not sure what the justification of monogamy is, in a legal sense. The biggest problem I could see would be in division of property at death, but that is what wills are for.

In the case of incest, there is the problem of genetic problems arising in their offspring. The problem with making that as a legal case for banning it is that we all carry some risk of genetic problems. I believe my high blood pressure has a genetic component – should that disqualify me from fathering children? Or is there some level at which risk is to great? What percent would it be? Is it based on the level of potential disability? Obesity and high blood pressure is okay, but skeletal deformities are not?

The question then becomes, if defining marriage is about protecting society, then what harm comes from defining it in a way that allows multiple partners, gay partners, or closely related partners? Well, France repealed its incest laws about two hundred years ago (thanks, Napoleon). It hasn’t destroyed French society. Gay marriage hasn’t destroyed Canadian society, either. Society in several Muslim countries that allow polygyny manages just fine. Either the incidence is too low to cause problems or society has enlarged to allow the practice. Either way, it hasn’t ground things to a halt. I doubt it would here.

So I can’t take serious any threats of the dissolution of society because people who love each other can marry. It just doesn’t make sense to me. If society is in the business of building strong family bonds, and expanding those bonds to the larger community around us, then it seems like those bonds should start at home. And it seems they are best started with someone which whom we are in love.

What if legalizing gay marriage opens the door to incest and polygamy? Well, I don’t see it happening, honestly. But if it does, then those groups can make their case as well. I still don’t see how it hurts my family or my marriage.

Sphere: Related Content