The horror. The horror. - Speaking of Kurtz, here's another thoughtful article he wrote on gay marriage. In it, he suggests that the real reason gay men shouldn't be allowed to marry is because they won't stay monogamous.

(Kurtz, who has apparently spent a lot of time investigating bathhouse behavior in his native Bay Area, says "homosexual couples — particularly male homosexual couples — tend to see monogamy as nonessential, even to the most loyal and committed relationships." Hmmm. I suppose I should mention that Kurtz is relatively gay friendly on most issues, if grudgingly so. He thinks sodomy laws should be repealed, for example, but mostly because they are attempts to close the barn door long after the horses are gone.)

Once gays introduce sexual openness into the concept of marriage, Kurtz claims it will spread cancerously into straight marriage because, I suppose, straight men will think messing around is such a great idea they won't be able to resist. Perhaps recognizing that he makes too great a jump between the sexually liberated practices of committed gay couples to those of heterosexually married, Kurtz introduces an intermediary step. In self-admitted slippery slope form, he claims that extending marriage to non-monogamous gays will force courts and legislatures to sanction polygamy and polyandry. These group-marriage practices, especially, will destroy the "ethos of monogamy."

Of course, nothing that Kurtz claims is a sociological fact. Gays can't get married. If they are frequently non-monogamous, is that a cause or effect? Moreover, so what if people become less monogamous as a result of gay marriage or no-fault divorce or anything else? Are we so sure that the result is a catastrophe? Honestly, Kurtz's fears sounds like a strawman to me. I guess we'll see, because I don't think his side is, ultimately, going to carry the day.