Before all this Women Bishops malarkey we were doing a series looking at the Coalition for Marriageâ€™sÂ â€œTen Reasonsâ€ leaflet. The idea is to go through each argument and see amongst us whether it has any merit.
Hereâ€™s number five.
If we redefine marriage once, whatâ€™s toÂ stop marriage being redefined yet further?Â If marriage is solely about love andÂ commitment between consenting adults,Â whatâ€™s to say we shouldnâ€™t recognise three-way relationships? Itâ€™s already happenedÂ in nations that redefined marriage. InÂ Brazil, a three-way relationship was givenÂ marriage-like rights by a judge because ofÂ civil partnership laws. A similar situationÂ has existed in the Netherlands for severalÂ years. In Canada after marriage wasÂ redefined, a polygamist launched a legalÂ action to have his relationship recognisedÂ in law. When politicians meddle withÂ marriage it all starts to unravel.
Hmmmm. Is the â€œslippery slopeâ€ argument valid? Would our courts really see marriage as aÂ redefinableÂ institution in the sphere of the number of partners to a marriage?
Over to you.
Not really sure about the slippery slope. In Canada there are moves through the courts to recognise polygamy but these may not succeed. Certainly, there is no legislative will here to recognise polygamy and nothing going through either the national or European courts to suggest a challenge down the judicial channels.
One suspects this is a myth after all.