Yes, David Blankenhorn describes himself as a liberal Democrat. In his new book “The Future of Marriage,” Blankenhorn nevertheless points out that same-sex marriage does nothing to promote the institution of marriage and is bad for children.
It seems pretty common-sense to me.
Here are some key excerpts from an article by Blankenhorn in a conservative magazine.
Similarly, it’s time to recognize that the beliefs about marriage that correlate with the push for gay marriage do not exist in splendid isolation, unrelated to marriage’s overall institutional prospects. Nor do those values have anything to do with strengthening the institution, notwithstanding the much-publicized but undocumented claims to the contrary from those making the “conservative case” for gay marriage.
Instead, the deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization–the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage’s public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization.
By itself, the “conservative case” for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples–if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society’s best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.
Wow, it’s nice to see some clear logic on this issue.
I would like to briefly discuss the issue of causation vs. correlation because this is a significant factor in this discussion. Leading marriage scholars like Blankenhorn basically say it is impossible to prove that legalization of same-sex marriage will CAUSE a decline in marriage. But one of his primary points is that there is a direct and indisputable CORRELATION between societies that legalize same-sex marriage and a decline in marriage. And clearly he believes gay marriage is not good for children and not good for the institution of marriage.
And clearly he believes gay marriage is not good for children….
I think that one of the best things I ever read was the idea that we shouldn’t use children as guinea pigs on this issue. We don’t have enough experience with this to really have longitudinal and comparative studies on children of homosexuals, and we shouldn’t use them to experiment and see if gay marriage will hurt little ones.
Thanks for this post, Geoff.
Well, I have read a book and other articles by Blankenhorn, and he is not a liberal. Democrat maybe. But he is a DINO.
Geoff,
Maybe there’s more to the rest of the article that isn’t on display here, but the excerpt you posted didn’t seem to have any particular compelling logic to it.
He asserts that gay marriage is not good for children.
OK… not that I am necessarily hostile to that point… but why is that the case. He never says. At least not in that excerpt.
He says it’s bad for the “institution.” There’s some inherent contradiction between the two.
But he never really explains that.
I guess there’s some “clarity of thought” here, inasmuch as Blankenhorn is simply restating in powerful language the personal views you already held. But the logic really isn’t that compelling.
In fact, there’s no opportunity for logic to even play a part here. It never enters the equation.
As a call to arms, it’s alright. As a winning argument, it falls flat.
Do all men (and women) have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or not?
How does calling their union a “marriage” infringe on your rights?
Why does it seem that most people want to control others?
The first principle of the Gospel is: Faith. Fidelity in marriage for temple patrons is 100 percent. Fidelity in a “commited” homosexual relationship is zero to 5 percent (on average). http://www.unitedfamilies.org/documents/UFIfamilyIGSOfullpage_000.pdf What qualifies a homosexual relationship as having intrinsic worth?
R Biddulph,
Are you saying that fidelity in marriage for temple patrons is 100% in theory, or in reality?
Because you seem to be making the claim that no one with a temple recommend ever cheated on his wife. Which is patently ridiculous.
Your highly questionable 100% figure makes me question the validity of your other claim of 5%.
Seth, regarding your #4, I think the arguments you are looking for are in his book. His article primarily addressed the correlation issue, which I discussed in comment #1. My comment on his logic directly addressed the article’s main point, which had to do with the correlation issue.
Re#6 R Biddulph
http://www.unitedfamilies.org/documents/UFIfamilyIGSOfullpage_000.pdf
That document is poorly done and researched. For an example, they say hepatitis A and B are caused by bacteria.
It is difficult for me to take it serious.
Fidelity in marriage for temple patrons is not 100%. My bishop when I left on my mission was cheating on his wife for years, all the time attending ward temple night with her.