9 responses

  1. Hunter
    April 11, 2012

    Much as I agree that Blankenhorn is one of the most moderate “traditional marriage” advocates, I’m afraid I have some reservations about his bona fides. I remember reading some while back that, while he claims to be a liberal Democrat, his organization, the Institute for American values, received the bulk of its funding from conservative donors (here’s the post at Salon from 2008: http://www.salon.com/2008/10/02/blankenhorn/). I also caught him in an outright fabrication in his claim that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child “specifically guarantees” children the right to be cared for by their biological parents — when, in fact, there is no such thing in the Convention, and the Convention quite specifically recognizes the validity of adoptive families and single-parent families.

    It’s nice to see that Blankenhorn has stood up against one of the more outrageous anti-gay amendments floating around, but I’m not ready to give him a pass. He’s been too dishonest in the past.

  2. Priya Lynn
    April 11, 2012

    I’m with Hunter.

  3. Soren456
    April 11, 2012

    What part of “separate but equal” am I supposed to accept?

    My life as a gay man, and my rights as a gay American citizen are not up for debate. My full participation in society is not to be meted out in degrees or percents or shades of the same participation that straights take as their own without limits or questions.

    So Blankenhorn’s opposition is more nuanced than most; he opposes THIS ban on my participation because, down the road, he will support a different ban on it — bans for which, of course, “he has no empirical evidence for support.”

    I’m afraid that I don’t see the point.

  4. TampaZeke
    April 11, 2012

    I’ll give him credit for being half way there but he’s still WAY on the wrong side of right and on the wrong side of history. He’ll be remembered alongside the kind people who didn’t want black people to vote or drink from the same waterfountain instead of with the KKK and George Wallace. I would remind people that it was the kind, sweet racists (like my parents and many in my family) that were the REAL power behind Jim Crow and why it lasted so long, NOT the extremists. So that’s the company he keeps. Not something to be proud of.

  5. Frijondi
    April 11, 2012

    It seems to me that Blankenhorn’s views on gay marriage differ from Brown’s in degree, but not in kind. Both believe that if gays can marry, marriage will lose its appeal for heterosexuals,* and the world as we know it will come to an end. Blankenhorn believes that will happen with a whimper, Brown believes it will happen with a bang. Hence the difference in their rhetoric, and in their positions on other forms of legal recognition for gays.

    *More specifically, they seem to think that if a woman can marry a woman, marrying a woman won’t seem like a very manly thing to do anymore, and all across America, men will flee their adult responsibilities as husbands and fathers by moving back into their mother’s basements, playing World of Warcraft all day, and, in spare moments, begetting dozens of children out of wedlock.

  6. PJB863
    April 11, 2012

    Why do I have the idea that this is the equivalent of “Of course they’re wrong, separate but equal is right, but we don’t need to turn firehoses and dogs on them.”

    Sorry, but if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

  7. Jay Jonson
    April 12, 2012

    This is just a career move for Blankenhorn and Marquardt. They bet on the wrong horse when they decided to crusade against same-sex marriage. Now, they realize that their “brand” has been damaged, especially after Blankenhorn’s credentials as an “expert” were shredded in the Prop 8 trial. He has never been able to give a logical rationale for his opposition to same-sex marriage other than the remote possibility that somehow, some unspecified way it will damage the institution of marriage. In any case, I agree with Claude Summers at glbtq.com who says that this editorial is nothing to get excited about, after all the reason he opposes Amendment One is that it harms the “marriage” movement, which he wants to be more effective so that it can continue to deprive us of our rights. (And though Blankenhorn and Marquardt oppose Amendment One because it prohibits not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions, they specifically declare that they are NOT calling for civil unions in North Carolina.) No principle there.

  8. Ben In Oakland
    April 12, 2012

    he believes that same-sex marriage works contrary to those goals (a position that I find wrongheaded).

    not merely wrong-headed, but demonstrably wrong.

  9. Blake
    April 12, 2012

    I don’t think its principled to be obstinate, misleading, & untruthful. You might want to reread this gem:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/opinion/oe-blankenhorn19

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop