To the Editor:
Whenever someone starts the slippery-slope argument in discussing same-sex marriage, as William Baude did (“Is Polygamy Next?,” Op-Ed, July 21), it’s hard to keep still.
There is no new route to legalized polygamy (or other horrors). Polygamy is a choice, ruled taboo by most societies over the past millenniums. Try as they might, those same societies could not prevent gay people, because being gay isn’t a choice. We’ve always been here, always will be.
Polygamists cannot say the same. Gays didn’t seek to change the institution of marriage, but to gain admittance; not to open floodgates, but to affirm an existing concept.
Gay couples in this country lucky enough to fall in love had no access to legal sanction of their commitment. Now we do. As Justice Antonin Scalia said about Bush v. Gore, “Get over it.” Drop that phony polygamy scare, too.
ROBERT LEININGER
TIM SMITH
Baltimore
To the Editor:
William Baude argues that same-sex marriages have judicially paved the way for polygamous ones. He’s right. For years, I argued with gay leaders that if Tom and Dick can marry, on what principled basis can Harry be excluded? They all said such a scenario was nonsense.
Mr. Baude concludes by saying that “once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us.” It would be more accurate to say that once we abandon the logical constraints of natural law, we cannot be sure what the future holds.
BILL DONOHUE
President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York
Note from KBJ: To put it in philosophical terms, the argument for homosexual "marriage" proves too much. It proves not only that two men or two women may marry, but that three or more adults may marry. If you don't believe me, read the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Here is Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the Court (boldface added):
Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.
Compare:
Under the Constitution, polygamous groups seek in marriage the same legal treatment as monogamous couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.
If one argument goes through, so does the other.
