That's what Stanley Kurtz argues in the Weekly Standard. He looks down the slippery slope and finds polygamy and polyamory (and the ACLU has argued in court against laws forbidding polygamy). And he sees among the supporters of gay marriage, the radical feminists from the seventies who have advocated an end to marriage, arguing that it is patriarchal and damaging to women. He even looks at how heterosexuals will play a hand in the devaluing of marriage, presenting an argument that causes me to rethink my ideas on the subject.
IRONICALLY, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage involves heterosexuals. A Brigham Young University professor, Alan J. Hawkins, suggests an all-too-likely scenario in which two heterosexuals of the same sex might marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Sooner or later, friends like this are going to start contracting same-sex marriages of convenience. The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.Kurtz argues that Scandinavia is well down the road to the end of marriage, primarily as a result of recognizing same-sex unions. Any supporter of gay marriage would do well to study Kurtz's arguments and decide whether these are the effects that they intend. And if not, prepare an argument why court-ordered legalized gay marriage would not necessarily lead us down the slippery slope.
