Stan – I agree that Canada’s policies on gay marriage are significant, but they do not constitute an irresistable undertow for the United States of America. We are different countries. If Canada were our future we would be holding bake sales for the Pentagon budget and the Post Office would be running health care. Americans and Canadians have many things in common but they also have a great many things not in common. Arguing that Canada is leading the way for the US must be demonstrated. And the historical record on major issues like health care, foreign policy, the United Nations, taxes, etc etc suggests that such a demonstration would be at least difficult.

As for the American Law Institute, I don’t know enough, but I don’t see why we have to let the American Law Institute settle these questions for us. You assert that the Law Commission of Canada and the ALI are “rough equivalents” in your Standard piece. I take you at your word, but I do know a little about the Canadian Law Commission’s power and influence — as well as Canada’s general acceptance of rule by the courts — and I must say I’m a little skeptical that the ALI has the same authority here.

And as for slippery slopes, I have a long record as a skeptic of such arguments, but all I’ll add is that I agree with Noah Millman. If you are going to use them at all, you need to demonstrate very carefully that A must force B into existence and that B requires C and so on. You cannot simply say that B is more likely once A happens, or that it would be intellectually consistent if supporters of A also campaigned for B. People aren’t consistent and they don’t follow through on their convictions simply because a straight-line prediction of their rhetoric suggests they should.