My objection is that taking this stance can weaken our resolve as this debate proceeds; that it can be interpreted as a concession that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage in and of itself; that it would be acceptable to legalize it if we could be assured that these other undesirable consequences will not follow.
There is another thing to consider: Arguing the slippery slope gives those who favor homosexual marriage an opening to press their case. They can argue that defenders of traditional marriage are resorting to a scare tactic; that society draws lines all the time between reasonable and unreasonable legislative goals, and can do so in this matter, too. For example, the proponents of homosexual marriage can argue that cultural conservatives are willing to draw lines when making the case for laws against obscenity. This is a valid point. Our side will make the case that our call for laws against porn does not imply that we are looking to censor free speech on political matters somewhere down the road. We also maintain that our push for vouchers for Catholic school students should not be interpreted as the first step on the path toward establishing Catholicism as the official religion of the United States. We insist that we know how to draw the lines in these areas.
I have not changed my position on the weakness of the slippery slope argument. I remain convinced that it will be more effective for our side to be forthright and admit openly that indeed we are seeking to “legislate morality” in this matter, to argue that most laws, including those favored by the political left, legislate morality. Laws against hate crimes come to mind.
But there is a need to say more on this topic. Even if the slippery slope argument has certain weaknesses, there is an effective and sound method for using it. All that is required is a little reverse English. The opportunity to apply the reverse English arises when proponents of homosexual marriage seek to discredit the slippery slope argument by making light of the charge that the next step will be a call to legalize things like polygamy and incest. We all have heard their assurances that it there is no rational reason to fear that legalizing marriage between “loving same-sex couples” will lead to the legalization of deviant sexual behaviors.
Consider what is implied in that proposition. The anguished look on the faces of those who argue this case is meant to convince us that they are offended that anyone would link a longing for a “loving and monogamous” union with a “life-partner” with disreputable sexual activity. The homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan appears frequently on talk shows making precisely this case. Indeed, he contends that homosexual marriage should be viewed as a conservative and moral proposition that will provide homosexuals a way of becoming part of their families and the community at large, that it will be a stabilizing force for society.
Well, as the saying goes, “he who says A must say B.” If you argue that “monogamous same-sex” marriage should be made legal, then you are saying that polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality should not. You are saying that these are deviant behaviors; that society should not grant them legal sanction; that they are crimes, and should stay that way.
In other words, the proponents of homosexual marriage are conceding that society has the right to define what is and what is not a marriage; that it is proper to legislate morality in this matter. What they are asking society to do is move the line that defines acceptable sexual behavior in order to encompass that sexual activity to which they are drawn, but no farther. They want society to grant legitimacy to “monogamous, same-sex unions,” but are comfortable with keeping illegal the behaviors of those whose sexual yearnings are a more radical departure from traditional morality. (Or so they say. We cannot impute motives. No doubt, some advocates for homosexual marriage have a more far-reaching agenda. But one step at a time. Let us deal with what they are saying at the current time.)
Taking this position should put advocates for homosexual marriage on the defensive. It is not the defenders of the traditional understanding of marriage who should be obliged to explain why they want to “exclude loving same-sex couples” from full participation in society. If logic counts in this debate, the advocates for homosexual marriage should be required to explain why the understanding of marriage that has prevailed for thousands of years and across all cultures should be altered to accommodate their deviancy from that norm — but not the deviations of pedophiles, polygamists, etc.
If we insist that they make that case, what reason can they offer for not extending the definition of marriage to encompass the yearnings of those drawn to these other behaviors, other than that they are either unnatural or immoral? Perhaps the advocates of “monogamous same-sex marriage” are convinced that the majority of Americans can be persuaded that the line should be redrawn to do just that. If they are right, the day will come when they will carry the day legislatively.
But that is how the debate should proceed, by the logic of the advocates of same-sex marriage. Those should be the terms of the debate. We should be discussing why we should redefine marriage in such a way as to accept a form of sexual behavior once considered a perversion, while at the same time retaining our sanctions against all of the others. The proponents of homosexual marriage take to task defenders of the traditional marriage for legislating morality. It is the key to their case. But they also are asking society to legislate morality — as long as it is their morality.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
