Gay marriage and the slippery slope

Discuss round three of this week's Dust-Up.

Comments will close after one week.

From the Los Angeles Times

[I add that this also can be used against the Texas CPS: polygamist children slippery slope argument.] On or about three days before the publication of this article, I wrote Available (draft in full or in part) at: http://www.geocities.com/rre5/MOMS.html

RHODNEY RECK @ 7:05 PM PDT, May 24, 2008
I admire the vehement defense of homosexual marraige I'm seeing here, but that rightiousness is blinding you to the existence of certain words in our constitution and a large cadre of lawyers in our state. The same logic used to get this decision can be used to open up marriage to any combination of individuals desired. Otherwise the state is discriminating in its application of benefits conferred under law - and that's a no-no. Think about it folks. No, it's not a reason to turn back this decision, but the decision opens a Pandora's Box and as a culture we will have some interesting discussions about where to draw the line next time.

Doug @ 7:51 AM PDT, May 23, 2008
Yeah, Jon! Beautiful response. Way to tell it like it is.

Bergo Muller @ 1:53 PM PDT, May 22, 2008
The slippery slope started over 40 years ago when the courts overturned the ban on black/white marriages. At the time that was considered almost as evil, unnatural and anti-family as gays getting married.

Pat Brown @ 1:29 PM PDT, May 22, 2008
Screw you if I want to be a polygamist who would that hurt?

Paul @ 12:15 PM PDT, May 22, 2008
Robpollard, if your argument against same-sex marriage were valid, you would not need to create what doesnt exist to make your point. There is no oppressed class of citizens in our society made up of incestuous couples. Such a minority group does not exist. Gay and lesbian people are a minority group that have existed in every culture and in every age. Their life-long unions were real before same-sex marriage became a part of the wider public consciousness.

Rodger @ 11:57 AM PDT, May 22, 2008
I have always said that changing marriage from one man and one woman will open the door to a potential Pandora's Box" of alternatives. No one will be able to say no to anyone or any alternative option that someone wants to call a marriage. Does anyone making decisions have any common sense or can they even think past the noses on their faces?

Mike Wilson @ 11:33 AM PDT, May 22, 2008
I'm not sure Glen Lavy actually read the Opinion by the court. It clearly states that their decision has no bearing on Polygamy or any other types of relationships. Their ruling doesn't even effect the status of heterosexual marriages. If these groups are really worried about these other types of relationships being recognized they should fight and rally against them. Gay Marriage has nothing to do with it, and bringing up these other issues is nothing but a distraction because there is no good reason to deny gay & lesbian couples equal benifits.

Jonathan @ 10:58 AM PDT, May 22, 2008
Just a minor clarification: Glen Lavy defined both polygamy and polyamory as "group marriages." In fact, that definition applies only to polygamy. Polyamory (having more than one intimate, loving relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of all people involved) need not involve marriage in the religious or legal sense -- although it usually involves committed, long-term relationships. - Amy Gahran

Amy Gahran @ 9:18 AM PDT, May 22, 2008
I am not a fan of legal recognition of polygamy, but the idea that polygamy should be banned because polygamy harms women is sort of like the idea that interracial marriage should be banned because interracial marriage harms blacks.

Michael Ejercito @ 8:41 AM PDT, May 22, 2008
Next