Before all this Women Bishops malarkey we were doing a series looking at the Coalition for Marriage’s “Ten Reasons” leaflet. The idea is to go through each argument and see amongst us whether it has any merit.
Here’s number five.
If we redefine marriage once, what’s to stop marriage being redefined yet further? If marriage is solely about love and commitment between consenting adults, what’s to say we shouldn’t recognise three-way relationships? It’s already happened in nations that redefined marriage. In Brazil, a three-way relationship was given marriage-like rights by a judge because of civil partnership laws. A similar situation has existed in the Netherlands for several years. In Canada after marriage was redefined, a polygamist launched a legal action to have his relationship recognised in law. When politicians meddle with marriage it all starts to unravel.
Hmmmm. Is the “slippery slope” argument valid? Would our courts really see marriage as a redefinable 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.