Category Archives: Marriage

Religious Accomodation: The Case of The Kentucky Clerks Not Handing Out Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Let’s think about this for a second. Corey wants to say Kim Davis has no right to force her religious views on the public through the government. He says: 

“This particular case however, isn’t about Ms. Davis being free to practice her religion and it isn’t about having the freedom to conform into the image and likeness of Christ. Instead, this is about Ms. Davis’s attempt to force her religious restrictions on the general public and an attempt to conform the secular government into the image and likeness of Christ (or her version thereof).”


“Every person in America has the freedom to practice their religion. However, we do not have blanket freedom to step into a government role and force that arm of government, no matter how small, to conform to our own religious beliefs.  That’s not what the Bible teaches us to do. We are told to mold ourselves after Jesus– but are never told to hijack the government and force the government to conform to Jesus. Instead, we’re simply to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and to be obedient to the authorities as we quietly labor at building the Kingdom of God.”  You can read his whole post here.
A. Is THIS not some Christian vision of how Christianity and politics should (or in Corey’s case shouldn’t) mix? So why accuse someone of imposing their version while you do the same? Granted, I agree government should not make theological statements honouring one belief above another ie., padeo-baptism for all citizens regardless of whatever branch of Christianity you are from or religion you are but there are ways of going about this without being accused of what Corey is saying and and accommodating religious belief at the same time. Linked below.

B. The problem with what Corey says here is that because it flows from this anabaptist view it tends to be convoluted. For example, if you are a principled pluralist, you say that God is above everything else. The rest is government and civil society. With each sphere having their own role to play. God above and the rest of civil society below. So THAT understanding should has implications for both government and the public. I guess Corey would accuse someone like me of imposing my views on the rest of the unbelieving world? Seems so.

So essentially, here’s how my religious view would work out in this situation: you accommodate Kim Davis and others like her by saying, “YOU PERSONALLY don’t have to give out religious licenses. Someone in your office who doesn’t have that religious conviction can do it.” Easy stuff you’d think. Read Ryan Anderson’s piece here.

But alas, it would seem, according to Corey, that for the government to accommodate Ms. Davis and her kind that would be imposing your religious views on government. The thinking is so convoluted I wanna cry.

Does Remarriage Equal Continuous Adultery? The Connection With Same-Sex Marriage

Unless you have been living under a rock this past week, some interesting developments have occurred in the US–the one I speak of here is namely the issue of same sex marriage. All states in the Union had bans against same sex marriage lifted.

While I was at the gym yesterday my buddy Dwayne Polk got ahold of me on facebook messenger and wanted to know my thoughts on this Piper article that he posted which you can see here.

Essentially, the argument is that Piper believes that once you divorce and remarry then you are committing adultery. But then he believes that God sanctifies those relationships. So this is the first argument to prove another argument for same sex marriage.

That is, the second argument is that if once you remarry you are in adultery you are in CONTINUAL adultery and God allows for that, then what is problematic with allowing for gay marriage.

At this point, Dwayne says that if that is the case (which he believes it is) then those who don’t allow for same sex marriage but allow for heterosexual remarriage are hypocrites.

Here’s the point I made to my Dwayne.

First off, my interests lie with religion and politics/culture and how they mix. I’m also interested in Christian ethics. Yes, I’m interested in theology and I’ve come to hold to much of the same theology that Dwayne holds to but I’m more interested in the religion/politics question. I’m also a universalist, and I hold to open theism. So you really can’t put me in a “conservative camp” on some score sheet saying, “He’s a conservative.” When it comes to politics I don’t hold to conservative values on some issues and may seem more to the left with others to my conservative friends. This has to do with my believing in the Reform teaching of sphere sovereignty. For me, Abraham Kuyper’s overall schema makes the most sense and is part of the reason why I think there is a lot of confusion in the evangelical community over religion and politics ie., same-sex marriage, etc (yes, that comes straight from Jim Skillen’s book, “A Scattered Voice.”)

I said that to say this. As you may very well know there is a diversity of voices in the evangelical community. My interest lies in how we can get along or co-exist with each other (though getting along is nice it’s not priority in my book. Two can co-exist and not go out of their way to be nice). Being as that is the case, there have been differences of opinion on divorce and remarriage. And if THAT is the case, then there are some who don’t hold to Piper’s view (which incidentally was raised by Greg Boyd on the Open theism boards years ago and by William Heth in the “Four Views” book on divorce and remarriage (which by the way, I’m told by one biblical scholar, Heth has had a change of mind and no longer holds to that view).

Thus, if one holds to the view that scripture allows for divorce AND remarriage, then Piper’s, Boyds and Heth’s view fail. But for the same sex marriage view that uses the argument that one is in continuous adultery it specifically fails (Boyd and Polk). And thus, those who say you CAN remarry are NOT acting hypocritically. They only way you could say that someone is being hypocritical is because from WITHIN the remarriage=adultery view the logic holds.

So, does remarriage=divorce and along with it the argument that we should allow for same-sex marriage? My response is no. And why is that? Because, as I said, in the evangelical community there is more than one view on divorce and remarriage and Piper’s and Boyd’s and Heth’s are only ONE out of the four mentioned in the book (and let’s remember, that if we were to take into consideration the Catholic and Orthodox positions which are in some respects radically different than evangelical views, then we would still have disagreement with Piper’s, Boyd’s and Heth’s).

But why do I disagree with the Piper/Boyd view and disagree with the charge of hypocrisy? Because, I follow Craig Keener on this who is no fly by nighter scholar and would disagree with the remarriage as adultery view which you can read and listen to here and here. For Keener, when Jesus said that when you divorce and marry another you commit adultery he was using hyperbole and thus remarriage doesn’t mean continual adultery. Let me know what you think.

The Marriage Pledge

In this post, I will put up links and then a little commentary on Reno’s and Doug Wilson’s piece. First, we have the pledge itself with the second being a response by Leithart to critics with the third being an endorsement by R.R. Reno and the forth being a critical response by Doug Wilson to the pledge itself. A sixth one has responses by various authors and lastly, a seventh response is by Catholic lawyer, Edward Peters.

Looking at what Reno says:

“But the season of sewing is ending. Now is a time for rending, not for the sake of disengaging from culture or retreating from the public square, but so that our salt does not lose its savor.”

A. What, pray tell, does “salt losing it’s savor” mean if not something more tangible then what Reno is saying? What does Reno mean by this? In what way would the Church being losing it savor by not backing out of the civil marriage? Would “losing it’s savor” in this context mean that there is too much concentration on moral issues while neglecting the “more weightier” matters of the Church ie., preaching, sacraments, etc? If it has to do with offending our neighbours over a moral issue and not the Gospel then I think this is a poor reason. I think of that scene in Acts 16 when Paul and Silas were thrown in prison unlawfully. As citizens, they had certain rights that were violated. Paul not only insists that they be escorted by those who violated their rights but he even seems to “rub it in” in this act and when asks to leave, he rubs it in a little more by not leaving right away but by going to Lydia’s house and THEN leaving. It seems to me he knew how to balance “pushing the issue” and “backing away.” Would we say that he lost his savor by pushing the issue with the authorities and insisting on his citizenship? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about not offending people for the most part, but there is SOME point at which, well, you can’t help it. Can there be such a thing as “offending in love?” Kind of like, can we actually “kill our neighbour out of love” or kill our neighbour while loving them at the same time? If love is narrowly defined, I can understand opposition to it. If it is broadened enough to include a wider goal for a wider situation, ie., someone is killing someone and you kill them or put a “stop action” to their action for not only their sake but for the sake of a greater good then it might be possible to see this as loving.
B. On the point of Doug Wilson’s post, while I would agree that this is not a time of retreat, and with his stance on marriage, I don’t agree that ministers sending people to Caesar is as much of an ethical issue as he says it is PER SE. It’s not as if the state itself is evil. The state may do evil things at times, but it isn’t exactly sending folk into a lion’s den. If a pastor sends a couple to the state to have their marriage recognized, how would doing THAT be unethical? The state will simply recognize those marriages as well as “same sex” marriages. Is that a bad thing for the opposite sex couple involved? All this would be is the government recognizing all relationships that come to them for marriage AS a marriage. They are not doing the “dirty paper work” by simply going to the state to have it recognize their marriage. The problem is the so-called foreseeable future where pastors perform marriages not the couple seeking marriage. The problem is, if the couple go to the state, and then go to the church and the church/pastor performs and recognizes a marriage, then they would be discriminating against same-sex couples if they opt out of performing/blessing THEIR “marriages.”

Alas, the problem of the government legitimizing same-sex “marriages” as marriages is that there others will be forced to legitimize same-sex marriages or recognize same-sex marriages as marriages. This, doesn’t just stop at the church door for it will eventually insist, like the wolf in the fairy tale of the Three Little Pigs, of blowing the whole house down and coming on in. For example, say we go along with the Pledge where pastors don’t perform marriages and leave it to the couple to seek the legitimacy of their marriage with Caesar who recognizes other relationships (same-sex) as marriage. What happens then? Say that same couple who went to Caesar to legitimize their marriage want to open a photography business or open a bakery? Or let’s say they don’t even do anything of that nature. Regardless, that couple will be forced to legitimize same-sex marriage that the state has legitimized. In other words, once the state legitimizes same-sex marriage it expects everyone else to follow suit–tow the line, which is to say that it will insist that churches recognize, in some way, shape or form, that the marriages that it has legitimized need to be legitimized by them as well, at which point they will baulk such that we are back at square one of whether we are losing our savor or not. It would seem to me that all we have done by this pledge is push the line we drew in the sand just a bit further back only to say, “OK, NOW I’m serious. Don’t cross THIS line.”

Kansas And Marriage: Yep! We’re Still In Kansas Dorothy!

I’m just getting around to looking at a couple of different articles here. The infamous one by Andrew Sullivan here (actually looked at this one this week). And this one by Ryan T. Anderson here. Sullivan MAY BE CORRECT that people or businesses of religious belief can withhold services from gay folk PERIOD, IF THEY SO CHOSE to without threat of penalty. But I suspect he is not (I would agree with Anderson on this point). I tend to think he is reading MUCH more into this than what is the case. It’s good that he links us to the law and if you look at the very first part of the law you can see what is going on here. First there is this:

AN ACT concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage

This has nothing to do with with serving gay folk period (full stop) or anyone who might want to endorse same sex marriage or anyone suspected of being “complicit in celebrating or enabling the commitment of any kind of a gay couple.” What it is saying is just below:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.

This doesn’t center out gays per se, which is what Sullivan, a gay writer, seems to want to infer. Nor is it is centring out same sex marriage per se. What it seems to me to essentially be doing is attempting to be neutral toward religious belief and marriage. In other words, if you have such and such religious belief concerning marriage you should not be coerced to RECOGNIZE or celebrate in ANY WAY a marriage that is contrary to those beliefs.

Now, this might seem odd to some because let’s just say you had a person or business that didn’t believe in traditional marriage. Should that person be coerced to do A, B, or C above? Seems kind of crazy seeing that traditional marriage is the in the majority. Who would say, that THAT marriage isn’t legitmate? But I would say that such a person would have a right to not recognize such marriages (albeit to his detriment) on the basis of freedom of religion or association.

But really, that is an extreme case. However, if you were to take, say, a polygamous relationship or incestuous one or what have you, I would say that folk should not have to recognize or celebrate those relationships on the basis of religious belief and the law should allow you to not recognize or celebrate those and not be penalized as well.

Disingenuous Arguments in the Context of Divorce and Remarriage

Just read a sentence that said it was clear, according to Jesus, that divorce and remarriage are sin. Then it said that neither Republicans or Democrats were rushing to outlaw divorce.

There is a lot packed in here, so let’s look at this a little more (except for the outlawing of divorce aspect). Let’s say that one agrees that divorce, according to Jesus is a sin, then would that automatically make remarriage a sin? THAT is NOT clear. Let’s put it this way. If divorce is not God’s ideal it doesn’t automatically mean that there is no “Plan B.” Get it? How do you want to SAY this? Do we want to use the language of sin or do we want to use the more modern language of idealism? To say that both are sin would be to say that those who remarry are living in continuous sin. That would not be the same if we talked about ideals.

Second, it isn’t clear that both are sin as one may repent of the first (divorce), God forgives and then allows for “Plan B” (remarriage) in which case it would not be sin. But there is also, the issue of the clarity of divorce and remarriage that this author speaks of. They said “Divorce and remarriage are CLEARLY sin according to Jesus.” Anybody who has looked at the evangelical literature on the subject has to know that there are different schools of thought on this. For example, this book details these differences.

Some time ago I emailed Craig Keener and he told me that Heth (in the above book) had changed his position from “divorce but no remarriage” to “divorce and remarriage!” Regardless of whatever school of thought you fall into I would have to agree from an old Christianity Today article (can’t remember which issue) that the bottom line in all schools is that God intends for marriage to be permanent. So to make an argument of this sort, in which it is not clear, (I personally hold to divorce and remarriage under any number of circumstances) in order to advance another issue (in this case, same-sex marriage) seems somewhat disengenuious.

The Atlantic’s, “The Quiet Gay-Rights Revolution in America’s Churches”: Some Thoughts

The “The Atlantic” (is that how I would write that?) has put out an interesting article, The Quiet Gay-Rights Revolution in America’s Churches on the changes within faith communities and how they are “progressing” and are more supportive of gays and same sex marriage. Whether it’s true or not, that this was in a very large part due to some political agenda as described by Capelle here:

“In Albany, who do legislators listen to?” Alan van Capelle asked his fellow activists at a dinner at the Sheraton in Manhattan. “Corporations, labor unions, and people of faith. If we can win their support, we can win the issue.”

where churches have been “infiltrated” to cede ground to gay activists, I don’t know. It could be a number of issues going on here.

Regardless, what I want to do is look at some of the points this article mentions and then give a little commentary on each one.

“It is a recent development — Jones dates the “tipping point” to 2011 — and it has helped marginalize gay-marriage opponents by discrediting their most powerful claim: that they speak for the religious community.”

There are a couple of things that have been pointed out in this article. One is that, though Pope Francis is still very much against SSM, he is more friendly towards LGBT persons saying, ” “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” and the other is the LONG solid history of the Church on sexuality and same-sex attractions and activities/relations. The Christian church has pretty much been unified on this question of same sex relationships. For the Pope to say what he has said is not unusual or even contradictory to the long teaching of the church. But I suppose one could say that proponents of same-sex marriage, in the Christian church don’t speak for the religious community either. At least not for most of those who have lived (past) and those who are still alive (such as the Christians mentioned in the article ie., Southern Baptists, a good portion of Catholics, etc. I mean, are we to say that the Religious Left speaks for the religious community?

This really is a question of justice. And the problem is that both the right and left have been narrowly focused on political engagement. That is, they both have jumped on this or that moral issue and have sought to get government to do something about it not asking the question, “Is this where government should be involved?” I know this sounds slightly derogatory, but both the Right and Left live parasitically off of one moral issue or another (Skillen) instead of asking about the more basic questions, “What is civil society’s role? And what is government’s role?” on these issues.

“I get it all the time,” she said. “People have been told for so many years if you’re a gay person you basically don’t belong in the religious community. And straight folks, too, want to see their religion as a source of love and inclusion that’s making people’s lives better, not shaming people or keeping them out.”

This get’s a little closer to what I’m saying above. Think of it like this. Say you have a public space. In this space there are families, churches, shops, unions, universities, police, voluntary organizations, doctors, banks, and so forth. Now, a university doesn’t have the right to tell a family how to work out their family life or family issues, etc. A union shop doesn’t have a right to tell a church how to run it’s business, etc. With THAT basic understanding in place now think of it like this. You not only have ONE church, but many churches of many different stripes. My Baptist church should not tell the Mormon Church what distinctives it should have. The Catholic Church should not tell the Orthodox or the Protestant churches about it how they believe or their codes of ethics or conduct. Even within denominations, a church should not tell another church how to run it’s business because of the dynamics involved. And so, you begin to see the point that this is not so much a theological question but a POLITICAL one. Churches have their theological teachings as well as their ethical ones. There are certain beliefs and behaviours, etc, that churches adhere to. Thus, if one wants a church that is LGBT friendly, such that it invites them to participate in the full life of the church, such that it marries them or invites them to take communion, etc, then what would be problematic with gay-folk attending THAT church and leaving those that are opposed to same-sex marriage alone–to their own beliefs, teachings, codes of ethics, etc? Why is there this need to change all these more conservative churches on this question? And here’s the thing. This has NOTHING to do with centring out gays PER SE. It has EVERYTHING to do with PUBLIC JUSTICE. Connect the dots, please.

“Central to this outreach has been a message that emphasizes religious teachings about compassion, tolerance, and humility. Religious leaders and followers want to feel that they’re not choosing politics over religion but bringing the two into alignment.”

Given what I’ve said above. Who is doing this? Choosing politics over religion? I would say, it is more those who seek to change a particular church.

“When President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage more than a year ago, he framed it as a matter not of separating church and state but of following Christian teaching: “When we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule,” he said. “Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.”

A religious argument for political question now, right? I mean, churches hold that women should not be ordained as priests, would the President say, that the Golden Rule is not only not being applied but that it is also going against a woman’s civil rights? I mean, there are some that advocate this (goes against a woman’s civil rights). But again, given what I’ve said about churches having “theological consciences” then folk should attend those churches that believe in women’s ordination. Also, this seems to apply only when the issue is “your beloved issue.” Right or Left. The Right, for years has mostly been the one to use religious arguments and those on the Left have said, “You have to hang up your religious hat before you can talk about a particular issue in the public square.” The Left comes out with their particular pet issue (SSM) and it’s OK now? We can use religious arguments?

“There’s no question this is partly the story of an overall change in American public opinion toward gay rights; it’s also partly the story of a rising religious left that seeks an alternative focus to the old religious right.”

All this is is living parasitically in the political system. Right vs Left with no principled understanding or a connecting of the dots between governing and the proper issues. The Left is pretty much doing the same thing that they have accused the Right of doing.

“For faith leaders and LGBT activists alike, a reconciling, gradual but profound, is under way. “People have been told for decades that homosexuality is a sin, but they know really good LGBT people, and they don’t know what to do,” said Groves of the Human Rights Campaign. “We need to be going into those conservative religious spaces with messages like the pope — who am I to judge? Once people see the humanity of LGBT people, it is very hard to hold onto a vitriolic stance.”

Of course, don’t be vitriolic. I know this happens with both sides. Both sides, both Right and Left could tone the speech down. Both can be welcoming but both can’t be affirming. One side will be both welcoming AND affirming and the other will be welcoming but NOT affirming which may look like, invitations to communion, participation in different areas of church life, etc, (again, all of this depending on that particular body’s code of ethics) but don’t believe in or practice SSM.

Slippery Slopes, Causation and Liberalism

I told the girl behind the counter at the cafe I visit on my lunch break at work that I was thinking of becoming a Catholic because of the social changes that are taking place in our society. Possibly a due to a purely psychological reason though. Just feel the need for a “safe harbour” amidst those changes. Hopefully, this post will help you see why.

On Monday I was listening to “Kresta Live” with Al Kresta interviewing Francis Beckwith. As this portion of the show was ending, an annoucement came on for “Catholic Exchange.” The announcer was talking about President Obama’s “evolving stance” on marriage. I went to the Catholic Exchange website and looked up the article that the announcement was about. You can read that here:

Essentially, the idea behind the article is that if the President was evolving then it would have meant that the traditional idea of marriage that he moved FROM was wrong and if THAT is the case, then same-sex marriage might be wrong. That is, making it exclusive for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Next it might be something else. Polygamy, polymory or incest between consenting adults. According to the article, the problem with evolving or progressing is that it never stops. In one sense this may not be true as some would argue that it would stop with marrying, say, your toaster.

Now, this argument, which we call the slippery slope argument has been dismissed by SSM advocates. Everything from mere dismissal to dismissal via scientific studies (so far). That is, scientific studies that show why incest would or should not be socially acceptable. One young Catholic gal wrote on her blog about how Catholics are bemoaning and grieving the loss of Christendom as an era in America and how that needs to be respected here:

What I want to suggest here is why I think the slippery slope is still legitimate in this context ( it’s not as if the slippery slope as an argument per se is invalid, as there have been many policies that have gone down the slide of the slippery slope after all).

Over the past ten years I began looking at sphere sovereignty because I resonated with much of what Richard Mouw spoke about (I definitely see him as being more of a “generous orthodoxy” type because much of what should inform the contextualization of the gospel is tradition and I still think the “younger evangelicals,” a term I first heard coined by Robert Webber, though more liturgical are predominantly ahistorical) as well as on the behest of Jim Skillen. So you start drawing the connections between who’s who and sphere sovereignty. Another name very much associated with sphere sovereignty is my online friend, David Koyzis. You begin to find out that Abraham Kuyper was the father of sphere sovereignty and that Herman Dooyeweerd was a largely instrumental in the philosophical area.

As I began reading Koyzis’ work (his book as well as his blog) he spoke about liberalism being in five stages and thinks that we are more than likely in the fourth stage but you can see the fifth stage being worked out presently as well. His prediction is that after the fifth stage we may likely return back to stage one. I won’t go into detail into each of the stages that Koyzis writes about, but I do want to write down the stages and then share a few quotes from his blog to inform us about how liberalism works out. So the stages are:

1. The Hobbesian commonwealth
2. The night watchman state
3. The regulatory state
4. The equal opportunity state
5. The choice-enhancement state

Now, Koyzis goes on to say this (from his blog with links)

“Each stage beyond the second sees a progressive expansion in the reach of the state, as sovereign individuals, desiring to pursue their own ends, continually alter the terms of the social contract when these ends demand it. At the second stage, the parties to the contract wish to keep government as small as possible, but as the combined effects of their self-seeking lead to inevitable abuses, government is called on to rectify these. Because liberalism recasts political community as a voluntary association, there is no fundamental reason to oppose the state’s expansion as long as the citizens wish it. Thus at its third stage, liberals come to expect government to curb the large corporate concerns. At its fourth stage, they call on government further to secure equal opportunity. And finally, in its fifth stage, corresponding to the last four decades, liberals call on government to cushion the impact of a wide variety of personal choices whose consequences would otherwise be destructive.”

“In my Political Visions and Illusions I trace the development of liberalism through five stages, beginning with the Hobbesian commonwealth, through the night watchman state, the regulatory state and the equal-opportunity state and finally to the choice-enhancement state. My argument is that the cultural shifts of the 1960s marked the transition between the fourth and fifth stages — from a focus on the expansion of material opportunities through state intervention to an emphasis on expanding the human capacity to choose, period. In the choice-enhancement state, government undertakes to maintain a benign neutrality towards a variety of personal lifestyle choices, ostensibly on the grounds of freeing individuals from oppressive constraints on their freedom. Hence Pierre Trudeau could claim that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, a conclusion difficult to contest on the surface. Yet personal choices are not without consequences, not only for the individuals themselves but also for their immediate and extended communities. These consequences are by no means equal in their impact on the larger society, with some more evidently diminishing of human flourishing than others. Therefore, in order to maintain the illusion of equality of lifestyle choices, the state is called upon to compensate for these unequal consequences by means of the very welfare state programmes established during the previous stage of liberalism for different reasons.”

“Liberalism has moved through more than one stage beginning with Thomas Hobbes and culminating in its most recent manifestation in North America. The eschatological vision of liberalism may be less obvious than in Marxism, but it can be said to consist of a society in which everyone acquires equally a maximum degree of personal autonomy, by means of either a small government getting out of the way or, more recently, an expansive government actively intervening to increase the range of personal options available to all.”

“Although I do not treat consumerism per se in my Political Visions and Illusions, I wonder whether its political manifestation might not correspond to what I have called the choice-enhancement state, that is, the fifth and latest stage in the development of liberalism. There is an undergirding assumption in our culture that it is good for individuals to have an expanding array of choices set before them, much like a buffet table with a variety of edible delicacies to tempt the palate. Politically this assumption translates into two possibilities: (1) government should free up the economic marketplace to allow individuals to pursue their own rational self-interest; or (2) government should intervene to expand the number of choices available to individuals and to compensate for the inevitable negative side-effects of those choices. In any event, it is taken as axiomatic that governments should not pursue policies supportive of some choices over others, lest it become an oppressive legislator of the good life. That choice might entail obligations or responsibilities does not enter the picture. Over the long term this is a recipe, not for freedom, but ultimately for tyranny.”

That right there is the slippery slope folks. It is liberalism that opens the door for autonomous individuals to make more and more lifestyle choices. Choices which tell the government to “get out of the way” in order to make those choices or asks it to act as some “neutral arbitrator” (though it isn’t acting neutrally under this liberal scheme of things) to increase the range of choices that one would be able to make aka., polygamous, polymory, incestuous, etc. Once the “bitter fruit” of these choices has been tasted, liberalism asks government to step back in to deal with the fallout. Ultimately, the slippery slope argument should be understood against the backdrop of this historical motif. I think one could say that it really is not a question of a slippery slope (yes, things will lead from one thing to another in the particular issues), but of causation. And contra the Catholic gal above, it’s not so much that I would bemoan this sad state of affairs as much as I bemoan the fact that contemporary society is quite oblivious to the philosophical underpinning for said state of affairs.