Animal Rights, Evolution, and Morality: Who’s Afraid of the Slippery Slope?

The rhetorical trick known as the slippery slope argument – by which one person argues against another’s idea by theorizing that it leads inexorably to the end of the world – is the darling of creationists and conservative jurists alike. Like its rhetorical brother, the empty appeal to tradition, it’s a way of saying something when there’s nothing left to say: if you don’t have anything concrete left to say about the evils of gay marriage, you can always argue that it inexorably leads to marrying toasters.

Along those lines, we’ve most recently we’ve heard from none other than the Discovery Institute (friend of John McCain!) that evolution, working together with the animal rights movement, calls into question the brightline definition of “humanity,” causing us to devalue humanity, inexorably causing genocide, abortion, and euthanasia. Wrong. On multiple levels.

Not human, but pretty damn cute.

Not human, but pretty damn cute.

First, the argument assumes that when the definition of “human” becomes open to debate, that the legal protections afforded humans must equalize down to the level of animals, protecting less and less life. But, if evolution & animal rights work together to blur the line between species, they do not necessarily cause a race to the bottom. In fact, it can lead to a race to the top, and a recognition of the profound value of life in increasingly more and more organisms. We can always respond to the similarities between man and animal by raising animal rights up, perhaps not on par with our own, but at least partially, in recognition of our partial similarities.

The Discovery Institutes’ argument assumes that granting rights to animals – or, partially equalizing up – is simply not an option. That assumption betrays a shocking lack of respect and perspective. If we’re the only thing that matters – if the Discovery Institute won’t even entertain the idea that there’s any value beyond human life – we’re not only ignoring the Biblical injunction that mankind protect wildlife (let’s play on their court!), but we might as well also repeal anti-animal cruelty legislation. While there are huge problems with some animal rights regimes, to answer those problems by ignoring animals is simply evil.

Second, like all slippery slope arguments, the Discovery Institutes’ argument relies upon an assumption of a failure of will. The argument proceeds along these lines: if man and animal are legally and scientifically blurred, there is literally nothing stopping us from concluding that man is worthless. The slippery slope posits that no-one will stop, think, and reason out a principled way to avoid that philosophical conclusion. It poses a line-drawing question – where do we draw the line on what rights animals get? – and then refuses to answer the question. Like so much of creationist spin, indeed like intelligent design itself, the slippery slope argument poses a problem and then simply gives up on finding a solution.

We are in charge of our own legal, philosophical, and moral destinies. If a legal or philosophical position potentially leads us down a slippery slope of reasoning towards a dismal outcome, we have vested in ourselves the reason and the capacity to draw the line, and solve the problem. While “ideas have consequences,” no idea has bad consequences unless we let it, and at that point, our personal failures become complicit in, and superseding causes to, the evil inherent in the idea. Ideas don’t kill people; jerks who don’t think straight kill people.

43 comments

  1. Gotchaye · ·

    Very well put. I think that a lot of this comes from a belief in a given system of absolute morality combined with the idea that the truth is good. The implicit conclusion of a lot of DI-type talking points is “and so it isn’t true”. They believe -now- that men are simply incomparable to animals. Science and philosophy have been moving away from that view. This implies greater moral equivalence between the two, which is wrong by their current understanding of things and so can’t be true. They do this more explicitly with atheism – a common ‘argument’ against atheism is that it makes people unhappy, etc. It’s just a general belief that the way things are is the way things ought to be.

    In defense of traditionalism, I think it does make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to traditional practices. That’s not to say that they should never be changed, but it’s extremely sensible to be careful when moving away from them. However, I do think that federalism provides a pretty good way of being careful about that sort of thing; the whole point of it is to make sure that, if gay marriage were going to cause society to collapse, it would have only collapsed in a few states and the rest of us would know better now. The notion that one can simply reason out the best policy is just silly; one has to experimentally verify the approach in small stages, and it only makes sense to test it against something that is known to work (to some extent).

  2. In defense of traditionalism, I think it does make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to traditional practices. That’s not to say that they should never be changed, but it’s extremely sensible to be careful when moving away from them. However, I do think that federalism provides a pretty good way of being careful about that sort of thing; the whole point of it is to make sure that, if gay marriage were going to cause society to collapse, it would have only collapsed in a few states and the rest of us would know better now. The notion that one can simply reason out the best policy is just silly; one has to experimentally verify the approach in small stages, and it only makes sense to test it against something that is known to work (to some extent).

    Another great comment by Gotchaye (seriously, who IS that guy?)

    I agree that we must move away from traditional views with extreme caution. While conservatives can often rightly be accused of being too fearful of change, liberals also take the other extreme which is that any new concept that doesn’t cause the collapse of civilization must be okay.

  3. didionsmommy · ·

    OMG, AMES!

    i kid you not … this is an ACTUAL LETTER to the editor that was printed in our local paper on june 12 of this year (after governor paterson’s directive that new york recognize gay marriages from other states) …

    Marriage law could start a slippery slope

    In Austria, animal rights activists go to court trying to have a chimpanzee declared a “person.” In New York, Gov. David Paterson decrees that New York must recognize all “marriages” from other states and countries. Are these events unrelated? Don’t count on it.

    While the Austrian activists probably won’t succeed this time, the way court decisions have been lately, it’s only a matter of time until they do. Then, of course, once the chimp is a “person,” he or she will have the “right” to get married – to “another person.”

    Do you see where this is heading? New York could be the first state to recognize inter-species “marriage.” What a feather in our cap that will be.

    William K______
    Hopewell Junction

    i kept it because you simply cannot make this stuff up …

    now along the lines of experimenting with social change and cautiously moving away from tradition …

    should southern states have experimented in the first half of the 20th century with desegregation … just to make sure society wouldn’t collapse?

    and “tradition” is being tossed around like “traditional values” are intact, specifically with respect to marriage …

    well, what about the divorce rate? what about the high death rate of women who are killed by significant others? what about child abuse?

    seems to me traditional male/female unions have some issues of their own … and these issues have had a detrimental effect on societal health.

    ***
    but back to the slippery slope …

  4. Didionsmommy (hereafter known as DM because I’m too lazy to keep typing that big handle of yours),

    So your contention is that since the institution of marriage is already screwed up by high divorce rates and spousal abuse, we shouldn’t be concerned with screwing it up a little more?

    My concern is actually more for the families (read: logical by-product of marriage). I believe that we have to keep a close eye on how gay marriage affects the children of these unions because I do not believe that the evidence is conclusive that it is harmless.

  5. Gotchaye, known to me by another name, is a fantastic and brilliant fellow, whom my girlfriend and I met during a lovely summer in Houston. Incidentally, Houston’s a great place to live, Haynes & Boone is a great firm to work for, and Gotchaye and his circle of friends are wonderful people.

    As to tradition, first I’ll agree with Gotchaye and Justice Brandeis that the states are the best laboratories for new social policies that we have, undoubtedly, and I’ll also agree that there’s a certain respect to be accorded tradition. We needn’t fling ourselves headlong into something just because it looks like the law goes that way; that’s the entire reason the slippery slope fails, because just because something can and maybe abstractly ought to be done, doesn’t mean that it realistically should be done.

    But, I fear that conservatives treat tradition as a determining factor rather than a rebuttable presumption. It’s not an argument to fall back on when all others fail, and it’s not one to use when the “experimental” record disproves the need for tradition; it’s one to defend practices where the alternative is legitimately untried and provokes real fears.

    As for Didi…. WOW. THAT IS AMAZING. Yeah, even the new York Times made fun of some Bishops who tried that argument… it’s so shockingly categorically WRONG. Even wronger than most slippery slopes. And that one’s an even more hilarious “parade of the horribles” than others I’ve seen.

  6. PC, re the last, I don’t think the evidence is conclusive that heterosexual parents are always “harmless” either. The evidence *is* conclusive that single parenting is harmful to children, relative to having two parents. So should we ban it? And, the evidence is conclusive that two homosexual parents is better than one parent, any day of the week.

    The only person who asserts otherwise, I know, is a quack legal scholar whose name doesn’t come to mind, but is heavily cited in the Florida Lofton decision banning gay adoption.

  7. didionsmommy · ·

    And that one’s an even more hilarious “parade of the horribles” than others I’ve seen.

    oh, i have others … here are a couple of titles …

    Democrats keep oil prices high to get votes(may 30, 2008)

    Don’t believe critics: Bible is very credible(may 24, 2008)

    truthfully, we canceled our subscription yesterday. we couldn’t take it anymore.

  8. didionsmommy · ·

    So your contention is that since the institution of marriage is already screwed up by high divorce rates and spousal abuse, we shouldn’t be concerned with screwing it up a little more?

    p.c., i would hope that with all of the comments i have left here and on your site that that is not what i am saying. when have i given any indication that i am a proponent of recklessness?

    that said, i do not believe supporting gay marriage or gay adoption to be reckless. i also do not believe that our current cultural traditions are perfect. a lot of the hand wringing from the christian right about the evils of gay marriage present the union of a man and woman to be without reproach, some sort of perfect manifestation that requires our protection.

  9. So your contention is that since the institution of marriage is already screwed up by high divorce rates and spousal abuse, we shouldn’t be concerned with screwing it up a little more?

    When this argument is used, it isn’t trying to say “Let’s screw it up more “. I think it’s trying to point out the problems with marriage aren’t because of homosexuals.

    Also, in my opinion, that argument presents the point that there isn’t a test/approval for heterosexual couples to allow them to create families, and it’s biased to try to push that argument on to homosexuals.

    The argument about concern for the children also bothers me. I’m not saying this is your argument, but some people say, “Well we shouldn’t allow gay adoption because they will be picked on at school and they’ll have a harder time”. But I think the response to people being discriminated against should not be continued discrimination.

  10. DM,

    I’ve gone on record as adopting a wait-and-see attitude with regards to gay marriage. I think Ames framed it perfectly when he said that the states are the ‘laboratories’ where this should play out. And I apologize if I sounded like i thought you were being reckless. I just get tired of that old saw that marriage is already broke so this can’t hurt it. As stated earlier, i am more concerned with the families than the wedded couple.

  11. didionsmommy · ·

    i understand, pc, what your position is, but at the same time, your position begs the questions …

    how long do we “wait and see”?
    what, exactly, are we waiting for?

    i understand using the states as laboratories for issues like … whether public utilities should be privatized … or what happens when states stop allowing unauthorized fruit and other vegetation to cross the boarder …

    when it comes to civil rights issues, however, i prefer swifter, broader action.

  12. didionsmommy · ·

    “boarder” = border … yikes!

  13. DM,

    I think we should ‘wait and see’ how things go in California and then let the states decide.

    when it comes to civil rights issues, however, i prefer swifter, broader action.

    Well that’s where we diverge. Marriage is in no way a civil right. On that subject Obama and I are in agreement. I think he wisely recognizes that marriage clouds the issue of real civil rights for gays. In his own words:

    “The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians. “

  14. Gotchaye · ·

    Ames, thank you for that lovely introduction. Switching out some names, I’d say the same of you, though I didn’t have as fun of an internship.

    My thinking mirrors yours exactly on gay adoption. I think it’s pretty clear that the average gay couple has a much better shot at successfully raising a child than the average single mother. If we’re fine with the one, we ought to be fine with the other.

    Didion, I agree with the sentiment, but what exactly constitutes a (purely) civil rights issue? Sure, people should be as free as possible and have as many legal rights as possible, but as soon as the possibility for significant interpersonal impacts arises, it’s about more than just civil rights. I do think that gay marriage is a small enough change and that we’ve seen enough at this point that we can confidently say that it’s pretty safe to go whole hog on it, but I don’t think it’s as simple as noting whether or not something is a civil rights issue. I imagine that, as little as thirty years ago, one could have plausibly argued that the adoption of Soviet-style Communism was a civil rights issue, after all.

  15. PC, I think the “states rights” solution to gay marriage is a one-way trip to nowheres-ville. The problem is that we’re a federal republic, and while laboratories are nice, they don’t work for “experiments” that by necessity spill over… like, marriage, when couples travel. Currently going to Nevada if you’re a gay couple is a perilous proposition unless you have (1) a good lawyer and (2) a web of contracts writ around you. That’s a nice stopgap for an experimental period – maybe – but it’s not an enduring solution.

    For background on the conflict of laws issue, read Linda Silberman’s article here. She’s brilliant, and incidentally quite moderate.

  16. Can I pose the question, whether or not I actually bring up valid points?

    I feel like so many time my comments go ignored even when addressing people. It’s so frustrating on this blog.

  17. Hey Oneiroi, your comments are some of the best, and you’re one of my favorite commenters. Speaking for myself at least I think there’s a tendency everywhere for blog comment discussions to devolve into one v. one, and sometimes others get lost in the fray. Same with my own comments sometimes :-). I wouldn’t be frustrated; also, “no reply” sometimes means “exactly right; nothing left to say.” that’s why I didn’t reply to your comment here on this thread at least. Please don’t be discouraged; I’m a fan :-).

  18. Ps, on Conservapedia silence was the highest compliment one could receive to a liberal talk page remark: it meant you’d stumped the creationist admin, and the liberals agreed with you :-)

    Of course, blocking quickly followed….

  19. …also, “no reply” sometimes means “exactly right; nothing left to say.”

    I would agree with that and that’s why I didn’t reply back to Oneiroi’s comment. Sorry about that.

  20. PC, I think the “states rights” solution to gay marriage is a one-way trip to nowheres-ville. The problem is that we’re a federal republic, and while laboratories are nice, they don’t work for “experiments” that by necessity spill over… like, marriage, when couples travel.

    This is sort of like the EC, so I expect we will have to agree to disagree but cultural attitudes differ from place to place. I have often said that morality is best legislated at the most local level. Federally-imposed morality is a dangerous thing.

  21. Sorry about that, I was drinking last night, came home ready to talk and was like, nothing!

    So I was a bit scared in the morning about what I typed. Thanks guys for the kind words people, sorry for the whining ;)

  22. didionsmommy · ·

    first, oneiroi, if you have felt ignored by me, i apologize … i agree with a lot of what you say, and in this specific thread, i thank you for your support by expanding on one of my earlier comments. (and you are one kick-ass photographer.)

    gotchaye, i am not an attorney (but i play one on t.v. … ha-ha!) … but even as i was writing “civil rights issues,” i knew i was going to have a problem. with the exception of false imprisonment or slavery … i really can’t think of a purely civil rights issue.

    not thinking of marriage as a civil right is really a challenge for me. we have to agree that divorce has the real probability (forget possibility) for interpersonal impact, so does that mean granting women the right to file for divorce wasn’t a civil rights issue? (that blows my mind … in a good way … and makes me regret not choosing law school a million years ago.) i have to say, a lot of women would bristle at the idea their right to file for divorce isn’t their civil right.

    my visceral reaction is that denying gays and lesbians the opportunity to marry or adopt is a wrong, discriminatory, hateful legally mandated stratification of society. as a layperson, i equate that with a violation of civil rights, but to strengthen my argument, i guess i need to stop framing it as such.

    and i have to return to the segregated south … desegregating schools and businesses, etc. also had the possibility for interpersonal impact … certainly in the eyes of southern whites … miscegenation being the biggest one … does that mean that from a legal standpoint the moral necessity for desegregation could not be argued as a purely civil rights issue? i hope my questions are making sense … because i am really interested in understanding.

    and p.c., if “federally-imposed morality is a dangerous thing,” what is your opinion of the supreme court’s decisions to invalidate local sodomy laws in texas?

  23. didionsmommy · ·

    oneiroi! you were DRUNK BLOGGING!

    beats drunk dialing!

  24. …my failure isn’t drunk dialing it’s drunk texting. I think I like typing too much.

  25. not thinking of marriage as a civil right is really a challenge for me. we have to agree that divorce has the real probability (forget possibility) for interpersonal impact, so does that mean granting women the right to file for divorce wasn’t a civil rights issue? (that blows my mind … in a good way … and makes me regret not choosing law school a million years ago.) i have to say, a lot of women would bristle at the idea their right to file for divorce isn’t their civil right.

    From a legal perspective (and I’m not lawyer either) I would think that exiting (or entering) a marriage is a simple matter of contracts. If a man or woman wants out, they end the contract. Sometimes there are penalties for ending the contract (alimony, child support, half of one’s assests) but it’s really just that.

    and p.c., if “federally-imposed morality is a dangerous thing,” what is your opinion of the supreme court’s decisions to invalidate local sodomy laws in texas?

    Well, first of all, that law was challenged at the local level and went up the ladder. That’s the appropriate path. It was also used as the basis for discrimination. What I’m talking about (and I should have been more clear) is Congress passing a law that affects a ‘moral’ issue.

  26. didionsmommy · ·

    (interestingly, i view marriage as a contract, and that is one of the reasons i have zero problem with two informed, consenting adults (hetero- or homosexual) entering into said contract.)

    continuing with the contract idea … woman being viewed as an equal party in a marriage and therefore entitled to equal redress (property, money, other assets) in a divorce was a civil rights victory for women, wasn’t it?

    (not a rhetorical question.)

  27. Yes, historically there have been various points where women would have found it almost impossible to obtain a divorce, hence a violation of their civil rights, but we are talking about contemporary marriage.

    Also, I would consider the right to leave a contract the civil right, not the contract itself.

  28. DM is arguing marriage as a due process right. I think that’s correct. Marriage is an expressive act, and a means of definition of ourselves, and a means of securing government benefits which thereby can’t be held back without at least a rational basis. I for one can’t think of a rational basis for denying marriage as a due process right, other than, “it’s scary,” or “it’s always been done that way,” and as I’ve said, especially where the empirical evidence seems to bear out that gay marriage isn’t bad for the individual or the family or society, mere tradition isn’t enough to rise to rational basis.

    Further, marriage is one of the “fundamental rights” of our society: to quote Lawrence (despite the fact that Kennedy wouldn’t want it quoted this way, he wrote it!), it’s one of the ways humans explore the “sweet mystery of life,” and “traditional marriage” proponents themselves concede the vital importance of marriage to the marital pair. Something that important can’t not be a fundamental right, and if it is a fundamental right, it can’t be kept from someone unless the statute restricting the right is “narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.” If we’re worried about the effects on children & society, and of weakening marriage, keeping gays out is obviously not “narrowly tailored” to that end. It’s underbroad – why not withold marriage from abusive parents, single parents, and divorcees? – and overbroad – it witholds marriage from good parents.

    That said, I also think due process is als not the way to go about it. Justice Kennedy won’t go down that road: he’s said so EXPLICITLY. As long as he’s alive – hold out til February, buddy! – we’ll need another route. And I think that route is equal protection.

    Gays are no different than straights, except that the evidence *does* point to a biological predisposition to homosexuality. It’s settled law that one can’t discriminate between classes based on biological distinctions alone. And, even if it’s not biological, sexuality is an identity linked trait so close to being immutable that the state ought not ask someone to change it simply to avail oneself of the protection of the law. In that sense, it’s like religion. The state won’t ask you to change your religion, even though you could, because it’s so deeply personal. If sexuality isn’t a basis for discrimination, then marriage can’t be withheld from gays.

  29. I don’t see how marriage is a fundamental right. The type of marriage gays are seeking is the legal creation which is relatively new in its existance. This legal construct, being just that, gives the government the option of restricting inclusion to whomever they want. it’s sort of like a driver’s license. there are age requirements, you can’t be first cousins, etc. The fact that you must be a man and a woman is part of the state’s criteria. Now I would argue the state has the responsibility to keep this criteria current, but it is not obligated to offer marriage to all i.e. as a ‘civil right’.

  30. didionsmommy · ·

    thanks ames for getting the right words out there … can we put you on retainer?

    ; )

    p.c. … o.k., let’s go back to the states … you propose a wait-and-see approach and then leaving it up to the states to decide for themselves whether to allow gays to marry or adopt.

    let’s assume that magical “wait-and-see” period has elapsed, and kids in california are thriving with gay parents as they would in intact, functioning hetero families. now let’s assume kentucky is trying to decide what to do about gay marriage and adoption. how would you vote?

    another scenario … california does not exist. it is kentucky that is going to be the laboratory, and you are part of the team crafting the proposed laws … the first allows for gay marriage. the second allows for gay adoption. what do your laws say?

  31. If I was crafting the laws (bwahahahaha) I wouldn’t offer legal marriage to anyone. Civil unions for all and stop there. I really don’t see a problem with gays adopting but I am curious (as a social scientist) as to what the long term effects of widespread gay unions would be on children. I think a slow and measured approach to a radical new family model is wise.

    Without California I would still feel the same way. I would enact civil union laws that included gays but I would include a sunset provision for 10 years out.

  32. Mein gott in himmel, that’s decidedly rational. I for one would clear up the dialogue: a civil union is all that straight people get now, it’s just made a “marriage” by the church. Of course, the statutes conflate ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’ left and right, and since it’s more inflammatory to think about gays getting married in an unwilling church, it’s not a distinction that the right wants to clear up anytime soon.

  33. Sometimes I think it’s mostly like a Mexican standoff. On one side, gays want to say they forced the Right to accept them. On the other, the Right wants to say they freely gave marriage to gays, rather than being forced to. It’s a potential social trophy for both.

  34. didionsmommy · ·

    i want to know, exactly, what we would be waiting for in terms of a healthful outcome for children adopted by gays …

    is it enough if they are well cared for: have a comfortable home, access to education, a family environment that fosters personal growth and that they feel loved and nurtured …

    OR

    is the “wait-and-see” to make sure gay parents don’t warp the minds of little children everywhere, turning them into raving homosexuals?

    i still don’t understand the test you want to establish …

    on the contractual, civil union thing … i agree “marriage” is just that … and always has been … especially when we consider the dowries and land acquisitions that went along with western marriages for centuries and continue to accessorize eastern marriages.

    (i got married on 6th avenue, in front of the robert indiana “love” statue. no church for us. of course, no land or riches either.)

  35. I think I’m concerned about how well-adjusted the kids are, how they understand specific gender roles, what their opinions are on family structure, etc. I’m also much less fearful of lesbians raising children than gay men. Gay men seem to be a lot less into commitment and longevity of relationships if the gay men i know are a fair sampling.

  36. didionsmommy · ·

    and i’ll bet those gay men aren’t interested in adopting, either.

    (and you, apparently, don’t know many lesbians.)

    i would like to know, too, what an appropriate understanding of gender roles is? because, i have a feeling i likely wouldn’t pass your test.

    bottom line: i do not see how you — or anyone — can justify singling gay couples out for special testing and analysis … they should be subject to the same rigor with which hetero couples are evaluated.

    also, you might want to check out this documentary …

    http://www.tjoemurray.com/projectspage.html

    it’s about gay life in rural america. it focuses on single gay men AND committed couples. one couple, specifically, has adopted several special-needs children and plan to adopt more.

  37. In Myanmar Elephants have rights as same as Human rights, elephants are registered as same as human.

    In Japan, pets are named similar to humans, and almost respected as humans. In religious blessing ceremonies pets are blessed as same as humans.

    In Indonesia “Orang Utan” means “the man of the forest”.

    There are two types of religions, Some religions teach that after your death you go to heaven or hell for the eternity. Others teaches that after your death you are born again according to what you believe.

    The first type gives no responsibility for the man to care about his surrounding environment because whatever damage they do to the environment does not matter for them after their death because they expect to go to the heaven for the rest of time.

    People who believes that they have to be born again and again knows that they have to protect the earth because the earth is the only planet we have…

  38. Can I marry that kitty-cat? She’s very cute, and probably better behaved than most DI cranks out there.

    I’ll have to clear it with my husband first, but I’m sure he won’t mind.

  39. LOVE THAT CAT. She’s ours you can’t have her, but I can’t blame you :-)

  40. I take it the IDers are saying that, once you give up the traditional human-nonhuman dividing line for moral consideration, you’re faced with the problem of drawing a new line in a well-motivated and non-arbitrary way. But this is absurd, because no one with any moral common sense ever thought the human-nonhuman line was the only one that mattered.

    These days everyone but sociopaths is opposed to animal cruelty. For example, we all recognize that it’s seriously immoral to set a kitten on fire. And yet we also recognize that setting a potato plant on fire is quite a different story. Consequently, anyone with an ounce of moral common sense has to draw a line somewhere between kittens and potato plants.

    So the idea that well-informed biology has somehow burdened us with an impossible ethical task is simply daffy. The task was already there.

  41. [...] ad culture sets the nation on a rhetorical slippery slope: while generally I distrust the “slippery slope” argument, our nation looks to its leaders for guidance as to what’s politically “proper.” [...]

  42. [...] ad culture sets the nation on a rhetorical slippery slope: while generally I distrust the “slippery slope” argument, our nation looks to its leaders for guidance as to what’s politically “proper.” [...]

  43. [...] i.e., the question of which state’s law applies in a multijurisdictional lawsuit – this interest is taken quite seriously indeed. Just so, while Nevada may have an interest in refusing to enforce the, say, an Iowa couples’ [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 679 other followers

%d bloggers like this: