Marriage defines one’s family based love. The parties to a marriage consecrate based on love; they enjoy equal protection and fundamental rights encrypted in the American Constitution.
Even though opponents of same sex marriage are right in arguing that such unions lead to polygamy and incest, the institution of marriage is one that pursues happiness and human flourishing. In this aspect, banning same-sex marriage without credible reasons violates the rights and freedoms of the parties (Greenfield, 2013).
The constitution also offers equal protection to all, irrespective of their groupings. The government ought to come up with a truly compelling justification as why it needs to restrict some forms of marriage.
In addition, it is an act of liberty violation and fostering of inequality if the government can form a preconceived opinion on what a given group does. If marriage helps one define his/her family, therefore, the government has no reason to bar brothers and sisters from wedding each other.
Excluding a group from carrying out something imperative like marriage by believing that it is immoral without watertight evidence is futile. Prejudice should not find a place in castigating same-sex marriages, polygamy, and incest.
The fight to allow incestuous or polygamous marriages has not gained steady momentum given the lack of political energy to clear the misguided arguments (Lavy, 2008). The article compares the present kind of repulsion on gay marriage, incest, and polygamy to the repulsion that has stood in the way of LBTQ rights for a longtime.
Even though there are minimal instances of birth defects in incestuous marriage, polygamous marriages, which have also received less recognition in America, have no such defects.
From this aspect, arguments by opponents of polygamous and incestuous marriage have no ground to pin-down or exclude certain groups since the rights of the children are not highly violated. From another point of view, same-sex marriages, therefore, protects the right of children, as they do not sire offspring.
For incestuous couples, the government can create mandatory genetic counseling to minimize the slight complication, instead of banning it out-rightly. There are instances where coercion or lack of free will becomes a strong reason to ban incest.
For example, in a case of father/daughter incest, it is highly likely that one party acted under duress. Greenfield (2013) attests that coercion arguments become invisible if such unions were freely formalized and divorce is available for all parties.
Incestuous and polygamous marriages are grouping choices that require equal protection as envisioned in the American Constitution. People should be free to make choices on the type of families that they want; the government should also have significant justifications to classify other associations as illegal.
Just in religion, liberty should not be restricted in forming families. The rigid stand by the opponents of same-sex marriage coupled with prejudice makes the issue of polygamy and incest slippery.
Opponents of same-gender marriage have incommensurability problem; their assumptions cannot be reconciled. Just like in religious affiliations, human beings have different philosophical and ideological commitments; this makes them to have different opinions and preferences.
Gay marriage and polygamy are important life aspects that do not require wishful rejections without valid reasons.
Even though there is a slippery slope in legalizing gay marriage, the government should take a liberal approach in solving such issues to avoid sexual-orientation discrimination (Lavy, 2008). The laws in the various parts of the world should be clear on incestuous and polygamous marriages.
References
Greenfield, K. (2013). The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest. The American Prospect. Web.
Lavy, G. (2008). Gay marriage and the ‘slippery slope’. Los Angeles Times. Web.