St. Maximos' Hut

One of the arguments made by opponents of legal recognition of gay marriages and the extension of constitutional precedents on privacy (e.g. Griswold, Roe, etc.) to homosexual acts is that this would lead to pressure for recognition of polygamy and other relationships currently unrecognized. Sen. Rick Santorum made this point:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,"

Santorum drew a lot of criticism for his comments.

This story in the Washington Times suggests that Santorum was correct in identifying this as a slippery slope and that the sliding has already started.

As a libertarian, I can only shake my head in wonder here - government shouldn't be involved in anyone's marriage/relationship. Government involvement means we have to have an agreement about who gets the benefits of legal recognition of their relationships and who doesn't. Since we don't agree about this, we end up with political fights that never end. Marriage is a relationship that ought to be recognized and defined by private individuals. Those who believe in "traditional marriage" ought to be able to get a traditional marriage in a church, those who want some other form of relationship should contract for it. (Since I am off to work now, I'm going to dodge the "what about the children" point for now.)