Northern exposure

Gay marriage opponents have long voiced concerns that government sanction of same-sex unions might open the door for other alternative relationships: polygamy, bestiality, etc. A case in Canada may now put that notion to the test, as two sectarian religious leaders face trial for maintaining multiple wives.

Winston Blackmore, a former member in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who now presides over an independent 400-person commune in southeastern British Columbia, is charged with marrying 19 women. James Oler, the leader of a cross-town rival faction that remains loyal to FLDS, faces charges for marrying three women.

Blackmore's attorney has indicated that he may invoke Canada's civic recognition of same-sex marriage in defense of his client's polygamous lifestyle. Blackmore maintains that the trial amounts to religious persecution.

Both of those potential defenses are steeped in controversy. Sects have cited religious liberty in the past to defend everything from peyote to LSD to homeschooling. The line between legal and illegal has often been blurred within faith communities. The connection of polygamy to same-sex marriage laws has yet to test courts in Canada or in the United States, though many politicians and religious leaders predicted it one day would.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family has argued that "the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions. . . . Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology, and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of 'rights.' Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right?"

In Canada, Liberal Party parliamentary member Tom Wappell contended fiercely back in 2005 against the legalization of same-sex marriage on the basis of unintended consequences: "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense. . . . [W]hy is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone."

Advocates for gay marriage cry foul on such slippery-slope contentions, arguing that removing sexual orientation as a discriminating factor in marriage need not lead to polygamy any more than removing race as a discriminating factor in hiring should lead to unqualified employees. Indeed, governments sanctioning same-sex marriages might still discriminate on the basis of age, severe mental disability, incest, species, and quantity.

Of course, the primary argument against gay marriage, much like that against polygamy, is not that it will lead to societal ills, but that it is one.