Luke Brinker at mediamatters.org, in responding to an anti-equality column by twice-divorced-now-in-third-marriage radio talk show host and author, Dennis Prager, threw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people
under the bus.
Prager's prediction dovetails with those of other marriage equality opponents who similarly suggest that necrophilia and bestiality might
become commonly accepted practices if gay couples are allowed to marry.
But in the 10 years since Massachusetts became the first state to
legalize marriage equality, there hasn't been a rush to legalize polygamous unions. Meanwhile, most states that allow incestuous marriages are right-leaning states where same-sex marriage currently isn't allowed.
As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has observed,
the problem with "slippery slope" arguments of the kind advanced by
Prager is that they ignore the deep differences between allowing a
committed, loving same-sex couple to get married and permitting, say, a
brother and sister to get married. Incestuous relationships, Lithwick
notes, are often exploitative and psychologically destructive, with severe consequences for children's health.
Here is how I responded in the comments (with links added here for further reading)...
The
response to bigots when they bring up polygamy and consanguinamory
is "What's wrong with letting consenting adults marry?" Please note that
under our broad legal systems, corpses and other species (necrophilia
and bestiality) are not considered consenting adults. However, a
consenting adult might want to marry more than one person, or marry a
close relative. When (white) women got the right to vote, there wasn't a
rush for voting rights for people of color, and when Loving v. Virginia
knocked down bans on monogamous interracial marriages, there wasn't a
rush to grant to same-gender freedom to marry, but there should have
been.
It is unfair to say that incestuous relationships are
often exploitative and psychology destructive. That is ABUSIVE
relationships in general, which can include complete strangers and
interracial couples same-gender couples. Also, it is the abusive
relationships that tend to come to the attention of law enforcement and
counselors. Nobody in a good relationship is calling up a shrink or law
enforcement and saying, "Hey, I just want to tell you I'm in an
incestuous relationship and it is great!"
The "mutant baby"
argument is a smokescreen. First of all, some consanguinamorous
relationships involve only people of the same gender. Yes, they are gay
marriages, so to speak. I have interviewed people in these relationships
myself. Secondly, marriage shouldn't be equated with baby-making. Not
all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. Thirdly,
contrary to myth, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce
children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems (I
know some of these children, and so do you, whether you know it or not);
while births to
other parents do sometimes have birth defects.
Heterosexual couples with obvious, series genetic diseases are not
prevented from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying, so the
"mutant baby" argument is not a justification for stopping genetic
half-sisters who didn't even grow up with each other from marrying.
I
expect more from Media Matters than to throw some consenting adults
under the bus to assuage bigots. There is
no good reason to deny that we
must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual
orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry
any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry
is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because
equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY
ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of
history!
