The Slippery Slope Revisted

It was only a matter of time: Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry

“If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it’s that separate is never equal,” Marshall said. “Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I’m confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state’s, and indeed America’s, ongoing marriage controversy.”

I do like the Onion’s satire, even when I disagree with their politics. However, I found a very interesting statistic (a real one, actually) buried in the fake news story.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census.

Why is this interesting? Because most of the rebuttals to the slippery slope argument center around the fact that polygamous and polyamorous households are a small minority of people, and therefore there’s no great need to recognize and legalize those relationships. But we’re talking about 1.3 percent of the population here… so at what point does a minority become too small to bother with?

Another example of the illogical opposition to the slippery slope argument came from Tucker Carlson’s show earlier this week (via The Corner)

CARLSON: I beg your pardon. I want to — I want to ask you a question. And I want you to answer it. No one ever answers this question. And perhaps you will.

The standards that the Massachusetts Supreme Court set was intimacy. People are intimate, share intimacy, they deserve to be married. Why draw the line at two people, say? Why shouldn’t a group of three men, for instance, by that standard, be able to be married? It’s an honest question. I’d like an honest answer, please.

[Cheryl] JACQUES [Human Rights Campaign]: Here’s an honest answer. Tucker, I’m raising two sons. I want them to be in love with a committed partner. I want them to have a family. I want grandchildren. I want them to take care of each other. I want them to share each other’s health insurance. I want, when one of them dies, the other one to be able to receive Social Security survivor benefits, because they’ll pay into it, as I do.

CARLSON: OK, but you haven’t answered the question yet.

JACQUES: I just answered it.

CARLSON: No, no, why not three?

JACQUES: I want two committed parents, like every family.

CARLSON: But why deny the right of [three] people

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because I don’t approve of that.

Dingdingding!! I guess Cheryl Jacques’ right to disapprove of a polygamous marriage trumps my right to disapprove of a gay marriage. She must be more enlightened than I am.