"'Same-sex marriage' is the slippery slope to polygamy." Well, at least, that was the repeated mantra by the Spring of 2004. Numerous conservatives frequently attempted the "slippery slope" argument in seeking to prevent legalized "same-sex marriage." 
 
But they have it backwards. It is their own surprisingly liberal big government view which created the real slippery slope to "same-sex marriage" in the first place. One could even say, legalized "same-sex marriage" is their "fault." 
 
Religious freedom and limited government define true conservatism. Insisting on "government marriage" violates both. Such supposed-to-be "conservatives" are really "New Liberals," opposing their own principles and heritage. 
 
In the centuries leading up to the birth of the United States, the experience of history demonstrates much about religious doctrine and government. 
 
Specifically, the Catholic institution had established its own traditions over doctrine in the Bible. In the centuries during the discovery of the Americas, many of the European governments were under the specific control of the Catholic institution to enforce that institution's own traditions. Marriage was one such tradition enforced by those Catholic-controlled governments. 
 
When some Bible-studying people determined that many of the Catholic institution's dogmas were often in profound conflict with the Bible itself, that gave rise to what history calls, "The Reformation." Protestantism was borne of ---and even defines--- this Reformation. Protestants "protested" the unbiblical doctrine and ultimately the government-control by the Catholic institution to enforce such Catholic traditions. 
 
Protestantism arose from the hunger to be free to believe true doctrine. Hence, to escape Catholic-controlled governments enforcing Catholic doctrine, Protestantism was the primary motivation for many Europeans to travel to what was then called the "new world." People simply hungered to be free to believe what the Bible really says, with neither oppression nor interference by government. 
 
The United States was eventually born, a direct consequence of the Reformation and its Protestantism. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787. The Bill of Rights, being the first ten amendments, was ratified in 1791. Liberty was acknowledged. People could be free. Any one religion's traditions would not be enforced upon the people by government. 
 
Or so they hoped. 
 
Sadly, many quickly forgot that very heritage. Most even perpetuated some of the unbiblical traditions they had only inherited from the Catholic institution. The ideas of marriage doctrine and government-involvement therein are obvious examples of this sad fact. 
 
Even a simple and quick reading of the U.S. Constitution shows clearly that the federal government has no authority whatsoever to be involved in marriage. The First Amendment protects the religious freedom of marriage. The Tenth Amendment prohibits federal government involvement because the Constitution never authorizes it to be involved in marriage. 
 
Even so, the Constitution was ignored even as soon as the 19th century. And one could even say that many descendant Protestants became the "New Catholics" ---especially as they sought to use government to enforce the traditions of the Catholic institution, i.e., marriage. 
 
Enforced federal involvement in marriage began by an exclusively territorial law enacted in 1862 before Utah was a State. Utah's non-State "territorial" status constitutionally "allowed" the federal government to bypass the Tenth Amendment constraint.  
 
When the law was tested in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed it and ultimately established such unconstitutional anti-polygamy case law. They justified their decision by deferring to the history and laws of other countries. 
 
In that Reynolds v. United States decision, the Court declared, "Polygamy has always been odious among the Northern and Western Nations of Europe and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society." 
 
Obviously, the very young religion of "the Mormons" did not invent polygamy. The Court cited two other continents culturally including polygamy. Still, they deferred to foreign governments, specifically citing the very country against which the U.S. fought the American Revolution! They conveniently overlooked numerous historical accounts of several Biblical polygamists. 
 
Even so, those "liberal activist judges" on the Supreme Court in 1878 usurped American sovereignty and freedom by basing their decision upon the history and laws of --not American, but-- foreign governments. 
 
Where? As the Court said, Europe.  
 
Anti-polygamy law was justified based upon the traditions of the very same foreign governments ---most of which the Catholic institution controlled--- from which the original American settlers had fled! So much for the Reformation and limited government. "New Catholics" indeed. 
 
For all Bible-believing Christians ---specifically, Protestants--- who consider themselves heirs of the Reformation, marriage can only be defined from a Biblical basis ---not as defined or controlled by the Catholic institution. (Only Catholics should be Catholic.) 
 
For all Americans who consider themselves heirs of constitutional liberty, marriage can only be defined as a First Amendment religious issue ---not as defined or controlled by government. 
 
After all, not one man in the Bible was ever married "by government." Not one. 
 
Conversely, there are numerous examples of polygamy in the Bible. Abraham, Israel, and David are among the dozens of holy men in the Bible who were married to more than one wife. Even Moses, himself ---the man who authored the "Adam and Eve" story, the original "one flesh" passage, and "Thou shalt not commit adultery"--- is openly recorded in the Bible as also having two wives. 
 
Despite the truth, anti-polygamy enforcement overturned all that. The federal government thereby acquired authority which neither the Bible nor the Constitution gave it regarding marriage. 
 
If the Constitution had been explicitly followed, government would never be involved in marriage. Even individual States would be likewise prevented via the First Amendment. 
 
And legalized "same-sex marriage" would never happen. That would mean freedom for all ---including homosexuals, anti-polygamists, and polygamists. 
 
No, in 2004, it is not so much that "same-sex marriage" is a slippery slope to polygamy. Rather, anti-polygamy directly led to legalizing "same-sex marriage." "New Liberals" have only themselves to "blame." 
 
Anti-polygamy is the real slippery slope. 


###