After a bit of boredom yesterday (Mark Shea was busy doing something else, rather than updating his blog -- it's all Mark's fault), I visited The Corner at NRO. I caught Jonah Goldberg disavowing the slippery slope arguments again:
But each success breeds a response and changes the dynamics of the debate. We saw this with feminism and loads of other isms. The radical feminists wanted the moon and their opponents believed if the feminists succeeded at any stage of their campaign they would succeed at all of them. But the reality was that after their first major successes -- voting, for example -- the appeal of their movement and their arguments withered because the context changed and the radicals lost popular support. Static analysis doesn't work in economics and it doesn't work in culture either.
This spurred me to write this email (which seems unlikely to get a response).
--------------------
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
Fine, gay radicals will be soft on polygamy. Big deal. Polygamists won't be soft on polygamy and there's nothing like recruiting sex starved males to the full-tilt-boogie fantasy on starting your own harem. I'm betting that culturally we are more predisposed to accept polygamy than we are gay marriage (even outside Utah).
So when you and Andrew Sullivan stand shoulder to shoulder against polygamy and start citing authority like "democracy of the dead" and Scripture, people will look at you with one eye cocked (as I'm sure Cosmo does many times), and ask what happened to "democracy of the dead" and Scripture when you guys were discussing gay marriage? Why should we care now? You can whine that you never meant for things to get that far, but it will be too late then.
Your fallacious belief is that it is only gay radicals that wish to tear down traditional marriage. You focus on the gay horde that may disperse after victory as you claim. You refuse to believe that other barbarian hordes might appear after the walls are weakened. This sort of stupidity is amazing given the historical evidence of the slippery slope we've slid down on sexual mores. People didn't see much harm in allowing contraceptives for married couples. Well look where we are now.
You don't need to consult Herbert's Dune series to understand that sex is an irresistible force once unleashed. Simply consult Chesterton (you might have heard of him) or ancient Rome.
The truth is that the polygamists have the easier argument. There is a historical basis for it (unlike gay marriage). And in our sex soaked culture (which homosexuality feeds upon), viewing women as sex objects (which polygamy feeds upon) is not so far fetched.
Better start preparing your anti-polygamy arguments now. I know you doubt me, but try it anyway. Assume that gay marriage is firmly embedded in our culture. Construct arguments that will preserve gay marriage but bar the
door to polygamy. And you will see that your arguments will lose.
--------------------
I know that Jonah claims he does not support gay marriage, but instead endorses civil unions. That's a distinction without a difference.
The folks at NRO also suggested reading Eugene Volokh on slippery slopes. I've got about 20% done. The rest is on my ever increasing to-do list.
Posted by Bob at August 1, 2003 08:41 PMHermit, I read your "Cup of Hope this evening while I was having my (almost) daily walk. I am overwhelmed. You must put this in more general essay form and submit it for publication. I was left wanting more!!!!
Great piece of work!!!!
My take is that legal marriage is already on the slippery slope to being a type of cohabitation. It is not clear that polygamy or gay marriage will make much difference in a culture where 1/3 of the live births are to unmarried women and 50% of all marriages end in divorce. We already are in a serial-polygamy mode. Still I agree we are a slippery slope and civil unions are a distinction without a difference.
The main marriage legal changees in the 1900s are as follows:
1. Coverture (one legal entity in marriage) goes
away, a woman now has a separate legal
identity.
2. Married Woman Acts allow women to control
their own property and earnings. Also
Women can vote.
3. Married couples have a right to birth
control information.
4. Divorce for "mental" cruelty is allowed.
5. No-Fault Divorce is legalized. This means
that people CANNOT make a legally binding
life-time committment. Either party
can change their mind without penalty.
The idea of equitable distribution of
property (vs. Title) is introduced.
6. Most states (under equal protection) zap
a male's responsibility of support. It
now applies to both sexes.
7. Most states have Rape in Marriage laws
(i.e., sex is no longer a duty).
8. Woman do not have to follow their husbands
location changes.
9. Males are responsible (economically) for
children born out of wedlock, not just
children produced in marriage. There
is not legal difference between children
in or outside of marriage.
10. Most firms have domestic partnership
rules.
11. Woman can have an abortion without
a Husband's consent.
12. Most states have decriminalized
adultery and many do not consider
it in divorce proceedings. This occured
along with zapping Alientation of
Effections or Breach of Promise suits
in failing to marry.
In essense, the difference between the married state and the non-married state is being eliminated. Married couples can be libel for alimony and property division, but all the other differences have been zapped. From a middle class male perspective, a marriage that a wife can unilaterally terminate with the liability of property loss and alimony does not make economic sense.
If you want something more than a watered down state marriage, you will need to use private contracts. Of course the important changes have been the cultural ones that have gone along with these legal changes (Slippery Slope). Marriage is no longer an obligation enforced by common norms, but a means to being happy. If a marriage does make you happy, you should leave. The marriage changes in the 1900s are a good example of a slippery slope. I think Daniel Monihan wrote a nice paper on this subject, Defining Devianccy down. See: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm
and http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.17965/news_detail.asp