I argued the slippery slope argument back in 2000 or so when I worked for the GOP caucus and we were fighting domestic partnership bills. Then I interviewed a homosexual activist for an article on same sex marriage about the slippery slope. "Won't happen," he unequivocally told me, and those who insisted otherwise were being paranoid. And now this. I'm going to see if my wife will consent to our marrying our pet cat (we don't have one, but we can get one in time for the license). Because really, who is the government or the state to tell us there is no benefit to our marrying our cat? If it makes us happy, why shouldn't we be able to do this?
It's all about us. Marriage has no other purpose than to make us happy and make society recognize our love, right?
It may strike you as ridiculous, but, really, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a man and four women can say that their relationship is a marriage, then what's to stop me, my wife, and our future cat from saying our relationship is a marriage? Legally speaking, marriage has become about what I want it to be, nothing more, nothing less.