I've never really given credence to the people that suggested a ruling would be a slippery slope. However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest. I understand the need to define it as a fundamental right within the context of this ruling, but it seems that some of the wording opens the way for other marriage relationships that are not explicitly defined in the court's opinion.
Incest - maybe. There's a clear harm involved there (inbreeding depression) that's much more substantive than anything used to argue against gay marriage.
Polygamy - We probably will revisit our stance on polygamy in decades to come. Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny), but it's not hard to imagine a future where that's not the case.
The risk to offspring is definitely higher with certain genetic diseases than with relatives.
The case against incest can be made on that base when eugenics are re-established and codified into law. As-is the only argument that holds water is "yuck" - one that same sex marriage proponents should be vaguely familiar with.
> Historically it's been used in a way that's profoundly imbalanced towards women (i.e. almost exclusively polygyny)
Any biologists care to chime in on this? It cuts both ways, and is more complicated than that.
I don't understand how polygamy is imbalanced toward woman. They get a stake of the alpha's attention and him providing for them. In the current system, it's AFBB. The beta male foots the bill for alpha seed.
> However, after reading the opinion for myself, I can see how the court's stance on marriage (opposite-sex and same-sex) can now be extended to polygamy and incest.
Good. If only they (or society) would decide that no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."
> no consenting people need permission from anyone else to call themselves "married."
I agree, but nobody did needed permission to call themselves married before today. If we haven't been referring to gay couples as "married" before today, it has been for political reasons, not legal reasons. To wit,
- Gay couples refused to call themselves "married" because doing so would have detracted from impetus to change the legal situation (which actually does change their real rights), and
- People opposed to gay marriage refused to call gay couples "married" because doing so would confer legitimacy on gay relationships.
The real issue here is about the rights and responsibilities that are associated with marriage, and while I'd like people's legal ability to voluntarily enter into those arrangements expanded, I'm not sure they should be expanded without bound.
> The real issue here is about the rights and responsibilities that are associated with marriage.
Indeed, that's my point. Those rights and responsibilities should not be legally associated with marriage. I would prefer that one be able to live with whomever one pleases, arrange for hospital visitation and medical decision making with whomever one pleases, share bank accounts with whomever one pleases, et cetera.
If you are so intent on redefining/bastardizing marriage, while we're at it, please take a look at family bonds and friendships and see what we can come up with "novel" and "progressive" ideas to add to the conversation.
Incest is legal in France since 1810 - and the new law from 2010 that seem to forbid it really doesn't. It's some additional protection law for minors.
As far as I can tell, it didn't lead to the entire French population growing an additional eye (and I doubt that incest rates are extraordinary in the first place), so the impact of lifting that ban probably isn't all that bad.
Agreed. The "slippery slope" arguments always seemed weak to me, yet it didn't take long for polygamy comments to pop up here. So seems like they weren't that weak after all...
