Homo Marriage Â and the Slippery Slope Argument
Once you insist that two gays should be free to marry each other on the grounds that they are consenting adults then you cannot logically oppose three consenting adults from marrying, either.Â Agree to same sex marriage and you must agree to polygamy, too.
The High Court says we already legally endorse polygamy for many purposes, so we cannot logically oppose same sex marriage. This is indeed the “slippery slope” argument – backed by our Highest Court, albeit with a different agenda in mind. (Andrew Bolts full article below the fold.)
In other news:
The ABC wins an admission from a Greens Senator that she was educated – as a guest – by a Communist regime long infamous for its brutality and oppression:
James Carleton: Tell me, you did study – correct me if I’m wrong – in Russia? The International Lenin School for around 6 months or so, when you were a member of the Socialist Party? Is that correct?
Lee Rhiannon: Yes. Yes. I’ve always been very open about my work and I’ve studied in many countries – political economy, Marxism.
Hold it there. How frightfully interesting. Caught on the hop, Senator Rhiannon admitted that she had studied at the International Lenin School in Moscow at the time when the communist neo-Stalinist (to use Mark Aarons’ term) dictator Leonid Brezhnev ran the Soviet Union. The year was 1977 and Rhiannon (born in 1951) was in her mid 20s….
But the point is that Lee O’Gorman (as she then was) undertook a course at the International Lenin School – which was an exclusive institution in Moscow which trained willing comrades for political action and which was controlled and funded by a totalitarian communist regime which locked up dissidents in psychiatric institutions and was overly anti-Semitic. The Greens Senator did not break with the pro-Moscow communists until 1990 – when she was close to 40 years of age….More:Â Rhiannon admits a brutal Communist regime schooled herÂ (Bolt)
Why Â we need to spy on Indonesia:
AUSTRALIAN intelligence agencies targeted the mobile phone of Indonesia’s first lady in 2009 because she had become the single most influential adviser to President Susilo Bambang YudhoyonoÂ and was thought to be hatching a presidential succession plan for her eldest son.Â Our leftist media tards Â are horrified.
Leftard Media “Hides the Boats”
ButtheadÂ Bill Shorten accused the Coalition of ”hiding the boats”….
Convicted killer and sex attacker walks free after appeal judge deems 5-year-old girl incapable of giving meaningful evidence
Ammanpour takes another dump on the Jews:
Â Homo Marriage: High Court Caves
The High Court this week endorsed the “slippery slope” argument used by opponents of same-sex marriage – and unwisely sneered at by the likes of Malcolm Turnbull.
In this case the argument is simple:Â once you insist that two gays should be free to marry each other on the grounds that they are consenting adults then you cannot logically oppose three consenting adults from marrying, either.Â Agree to same sex marriage and you must agree to polygamy, too.
It turns out i was wrong only in one detail – one that actually underlines my point. The High Court says we already legally endorse polygamy for many purposes, so we cannot logically oppose same sex marriage. This is indeed the “slippery slope” argument – backed by our Highest Court, albeit with a different agenda in mind.
The High Court, in over-ruling the ACT’s same sex marriage laws, noted the classic definition of marriage:
Reference might also have been made (and now commonly is made) to the earlier decision of Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee and the statement that “marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”.
But it said our law already recognised for many purposes, polygamous marriages (contracted overseas, although we also have traditional Aboriginal polygamous unions):
Second, statements made in cases like Hyde v Hyde, suggesting that a potentially polygamous marriage could never be recognised in English law, were later qualified by both judge-made law and statute to the point whereÂ in both England and Australia the law now recognises polygamous marriages for many purposes.
Once it is accepted that “marriage” can include polygamous marriages, it becomes evident that the juristic concept of “marriage” cannot be confined to a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hydeand other nineteenth century cases. Rather, “marriage” is to be understood in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.
It is not now possible (if it ever was) to confine attention to jurisdictions whose law of marriage provides only for unions between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.Â Marriage law is and must be recognised now to be more complex.
(My bold throughout.)
That is exactly the slippery slope argument, used here to justify in advance a future decision by the federal parliament to redefine marriage. To justify more “complex” definitions that “must be recognised”.
Malcolm Turnbull once mocked warnings of the slippery slope when they came from opponents of same-sex marriage. His original article attacking my own warnings is no longer on-line, but here is some ofÂ my response to Turnbull at the time:Â
First (Turnbull) says the “slippery slope” argument against same-sex marriage is nonsense, but without explaining why – other than to assert that unnamed judges would treat it with contempt… Turnbull also fails to explain on which grounds those judges would dismiss the slippery slope argument. Is it simply on a matter of law or through a superior understanding of how humans behave once taboos are broken? I’m not sure Turnbull knows himself.
The truth is that we do not need to go far at all to see how slippery the slippery slope can be. For instance, abortion was once – and on a strictly legalistic reading of the law in Victoria still is – limited to those cases in which a woman’s physical or mental health is endangered by her pregnancy. Now the restriction is so broadly interpreted that abortion is available to virtually any adult woman who simply wishes it, even when (in states such as Victoria) the child to be aborted is healthy and just weeks from birth. Australian ethicists, building on the work of Peter Singer, now argue even for the post-birth killing of babies by mothers who no longer want them…
As these and other examples show. once a traditional social taboo is lifted, it is very difficult to get people to agree on where the new limits should be set. And, exhausted by disagreement, we sometimes fail to agree on any limits, or none we’re prepared to defend.
Turnbull back then claimed what the High Court this week implicitly rejected by declaring polygamy was already for many purposes already recognised under our law:
Anyway, says Turnbull, “there is no demand, no lobby, no support, no constituency for legalising polygamy under the Marriage Act”, so where’s the slippery slope?
I am astonished that someone to the Left of the Liberal Party should be so blind to the desires of some of Muslim citizens, who argue that polygamy – unlike same sex marriage – is licensed by the Koran. Calls for the recognition of polygamy have been made by Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba and Keysar Trad of the Islamic Friendship Association. Australia’s then Mufti, Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam, said polygamy was an issue for the Australian National Council of Imams to discuss, and Yasser Soliman, one of the Muslim advisers handpicked by then prime minister John Howard argued:Â “I don’t think it should be discussed in terms of any threat to the Australian way of life.”
Turnbull says we’d resist polygamy because of our “view of the equality of men and women”, but defenders of polygamy would not just question Turnbull’s judgment or opinion, but would use against him some of the very arguments used to back same-sex marriage: as in, by what right does he deny three adults the freedom to live together in marriage, should that be their wish? Aren’t Islamic values and ideal of equality to be treated as second class? Why is he imposing his values on others? Why is polygamy a threat to his own marriage?
The High Court, no doubt inadvertently, this week validated an important objection to same sex marriage – that it opens the door to endless redefinitions of marriage that will turn an important communal custom, freighted by tradition with responsibilities, into little more than highly individualistic arrangements with little moral power. This could be a disaster given that marriage serves one important role above any other: it glues parents together in the combination that is most likely to produce well-socialised children.
Weaken that glue and we all will pay.
Turnbull’s once claimed judges would treat the slippery slope argument with contempt. Now that judges in fact use the slippery slope argument to defend same sex marriage, will he now revise his stand?