This Old Chestnut

[Content Note: Homophobia.]

Something something slippery slope something something blah blah fart:

A Wisconsin Republican congressional hopeful warned Tuesday that a federal court ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage could lead to the legalization of marriage between siblings.

Karen Mueller, an Eau Claire attorney whose practice has focused on opposing abortion and defending those "discriminated against and harassed in the workplace, the school, college and/or the public square because of their faith"...denounced the ruling and warned that it would create a slippery slope.

According to the Tomah Journal, Mueller said that the ruling might set a precedent that any two people can marry: "We've got, for instance, two sisters, and these two sisters want to get married. They love each other. They are committed to each other. They want to spend the rest of their life together." Lawyers, Mueller explained, would be able to argue "'We can just do away with that state law the same way we did away with sodomy laws,'" noting that "once you do away with that, you reveal what is really going on here."

Ooh, what is really going on here, Karen?! Is it, by any chance, a slow cultural awakening to the fact that saying "marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman" is bullshit, not just because it's unconstitutionally restrictive but also because marriage is defined in as many different ways as there are marriages, and long has been, even when it was a privilege only enjoyed by different-sex couples?

I know it's a radical idea, but I don't think it would be a terrible thing if two sisters were allowed to enter into a legal contract that gave them access to all the same rights that a marriage would. Like being on each other's healthcare plans, or filing joint taxes if it's beneficial.

And I don't even care if that's called a marriage, because, unlike the people who caterwaul about the changing definition of marriage, I am aware of and willing to acknowledge the reality that every relationship called a marriage does not look the same or serve the same purpose.

Not all marriages include procreation. Not all marriages include sex. Not all marriages even include love. Or monogamy. Or any one of a number of things of which we're all meant to believe every marriage is definitely inclusive.

Some marriages are already essentially business contracts. And I see no reason why that should be okay (or objectionable) when it's between two non-related people of different sexes, and somehow different when it's between two or more people who aren't that.

The only reason the word "marriage" indicates a special sort of relationship is because it's a legal right denied to some people.

What makes any one relationship really, genuinely special is the people inside of it believing it's special. That's it.

I suspect, depending on your position regarding undeserved privilege, you will either find that idea incredibly disappointing or incredibly cool.

To extend marriage equality to two people of the same sex is not to say their relationship is special. It is to say their relationship is equal.

Which is rather more important, in terms of the law.

And I daresay that if we all can be grown-ups and admit that there are already lots of legal marriages which are nothing more than a splendid legal contract to make people's lives a little bit easier, and agree that that's okay, then we should all be able to get on board with letting sisters "get married."

Especially as long as we're still keen to deny some basic human rights, like healthcare, to everyone—while still making marriage a key means of accessing it.

I realize that alarmist rhetoric like Karen Mueller's is supposed to bait me into agreeing that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and lest I disappoint, I'll draw a line. Right at the edge of consent.

Other than that, I'm pretty much on board with giving everyone access to the rights I enjoy.