The Left’s Slippery Slope

Written by Elad Hakim

Republicans and Democrats agree on little these days.  This is especially true when it comes to certain social issues.  For example, many Republicans believe in the traditional definition of marriage (man and woman).  Democrats, on the other hand, take a much broader approach.  Republicans tend to believe that a person is born as a man or a woman and that science dictates one’s sex.  Democrats have a different view.  One thing is certain: the country is currently on a left-leaning, steep, and slippery slope to the abyss.

Several examples will clarify this point.


On its face, government calling a same-sex couple a “marriage” might not impact anyone directly.  After all, there are married people everywhere, and everyone, for the most part, peacefully co-exists with everyone else.  However, the Supreme Court redefined marriage not because it did not “impact” anyone.

To the contrary, it does impact society, including some business owners.  For example, and most notably, what if a same-sex couple want a business owner to bake them a wedding cake with a written message on it, and that business owner happens to be a religious person who does not condone such a ceremony?  Should he be compelled to do so, or does he have a religious right to refuse?  If he refuses, should he be penalized, fined, etc.?

Also, even if he agrees to bake the cake, doesn’t he have a right to refuse to write a message on the cake?  It appears that these issues relate to his religious and First Amendment rights and freedoms.  We will see what the Supreme Court says about some of these issues.

More importantly, should the right to marry extend to relatives?  Children?  While this is not easy to think about, how does it differ (aside from possible health risks associated with relationships between family members, etc.)?

Down the slippery slope we go…

Transgender Rights

Those on the left opine that people should be free to identify with the sex – what they call the “gender” – of their choice.

While people are free to identify with whatever gender they choose (forget about what science says for the moment), what should happen when it comes to school sports?  Some people opine that those who identify with a specific sex should be free to participate on whatever team (boys or girls) they choose.  After all, how does it impact anyone?

In response, one need only look at the girl (calling herself a boy) who won the girls’ state wrestling title for a second straight year.  The wrestler is or was in the process of making herself look like a male and takes or took small doses of testosterone to aid in this transition.

Should someone who is attempting to “transition” from one sex to the other have the right to engage in specific school sports even though she may take testosterone supplements, which provide an unfair, and potentially dangerous, advantage over those she competes against?  What about the legal issues that could arise if someone is injured?  Who is responsible for this?

Oh, what a slippery slope…

Gender Identification

Should people be penalized or fined if they identify someone by the wrong “name”?  This is the case in some areas of the country.  For example:

Individuals living in New York City can choose from a minimum of 31 different “gender identities,” many of which allow them to fluctuate between some version or combination of male or female identities.

Businesses that don’t respect and accommodate an individual’s chosen gender identity risk incurring six-figure fines under rules implemented by the city’s Commission on Human Rights.

The list of protected gender identities is available online and includes options such as “gender bender,” “two spirit,” “third sex,” “androgynous,” “gender gifted,” and “pangender.”  A city official speaking on background confirmed to the Daily Caller that all of the listed identities are protected by the city’s anti-discrimination laws, but said that the list was not exhaustive.

The number of different designations has reached absurd proportions.  A list of thirty-one different gender identities is unreasonable and, frankly, defies science (and logic).  More importantly, there is a major distinction between allowing a person to identify with a specific sex and penalizing or fining a person for allegedly violating laws protecting these “identities.”  How many other “formulations” are business-owners going to have to memorize in order to avoid being fined or penalized?

A very slippery slope, indeed…

Assume, for argument’s sake, that we continue to descend this liberal abyss.  Where would we draw the line?  Should we allow marriage between relatives in the name of love?  Should we allow young children to get married?  Should we allow someone to have multiple husbands or wives?  Finally, to what extent are we willing to allow people to “identify,” and what measures will need to be taken to accommodate them?  Many people would probably oppose many of these proposals.  This is due, in part, to the slippery slope and dangerous precedent that could result.  At some point, more and more courts are going to have to deal with these complex issues.

Mr. Hakim is a writer and a practicing attorney in Florida.  His articles have been published in the Palm Beach Post, the Sun-Sentinel, the Florida Jewish Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.  You can follow him on Twitter: @Elad3599 or visit his blog at

This article was originally published at