Yes, We’ve Opened The Door To Polygamy And Incest: We Just Didn’t Want To Admit It Before

Conservatives have been laughed at for claiming that the homosexual “marriage” pretense will open the door to a host of horrors. On March 20, 2012, Kent Greenfield, a law professor at Boston College, participated in this mockery by his review of amicus briefs that were given to the Supreme Court to defend the traditional (i.e. heterosexual) definition of marriage. He wrote in part:

“Then there’s the fixation on how a ruling in favor of gay marriage will start the nation down a slippery slope toward polygamy and incest.  Adam and Steve today; tomorrow Adam, Steve, with Cain and Abel along for the ride as well. But no one seems to notice that the slippery slope worries are as great with heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage. The slope between gay marriage and polygamous or incestuous gay marriage is no steeper and no slicker than between heterosexual marriage and polygamous or incestuous heterosexual marriage. So how would this “slippery slope” danger play out? Is the worry that recognizing marriage equality for gays and lesbians will drive straight men into the arms of their sisters? Well, now you’ve lost me.”

That was written before the Supreme Court’s decision. Now that the decision has been made, Greenfield is suddenly changing message:

“It’s  been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something. You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.”

What follows is an examination of several attempts to stave off incestuous and polyamorous marriages. They all plainly fail. Most telling is this one:

“arguments for marriage equality do not really depend on the claim that people have no choice about who they are. Rather, the argument that resonates most with Americans is that LGBTQ people have the same right to make choices about their families as straight people. Let’s be honest: If science revealed tomorrow that sexual orientation is fluid and changeable, the arguments in favor of marriage equality would essentially be the same, wouldn’t they? Just like our arguments for religious liberty do not depend on whether people are destined by biology to be a Methodist, our arguments about the liberty to marry need not depend on science. In any event, if we throw all our eggs in the ‘it’s about the hardwiring’ basket, are we sure we have made the distinction we want? Are we confident that science will show that people who are polyamorous or who are attracted to a cousin are not hardwired that way?”

The whole article is good (and by good, I mean it exposes evil), but one other observation is especially important. The author asked homosexual “marriage” advocates about the distinction:

“In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.”

Conservatives were right all along. And we have many state battles in which to persuade the American people while they witness religious liberty being ended.


  • Bristler

    There is an annoying commentator here who insists that our rights come from the Constitution. But if that were the case, then how could the Declaration have stated 11 years earlier that The King was making "invasions on the rights of the people" or that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

    Some of our rights are ACKNOWLEDGED in the Constitution and the Amendments, but that is not where they come from. Otherwise, what would the 9th Amendment mean "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? What "others"?