I can only imagine the agita that Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage must be having right now. The only major witness for the Proposition 8 proponents in the Perry v. Brown trial brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values has come out for marriage equality in a piece in the New York Times:
I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.
I had also hoped that debating gay marriage might help to lead heterosexual America to a broader and more positive recommitment to marriage as an institution. But it hasn’t happened. With each passing year, we see higher and higher levels of unwed childbearing, nonmarital cohabitation and family fragmentation among heterosexuals. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the reconceptualization of marriage as a private ordering that is so central to the idea of gay marriage. But either way, if fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage overall, I think we’d have seen some signs of it by now.
So my intention is to try something new. Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same.
He tiptoed toward this view when he spoke out strongly against NC’s Amendment One in N&O op-ed in April, citing its extremity in preventing any legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples.
For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.
That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.
Thank you, David Blankenhorn, for crossing the bridge over to full equality.
Human Rights Campaign‘s President Chad Griffin:
“David Blankenhorn’s evolution on marriage equality is emblematic of the paradigm shift we are experiencing as a country on this issue. Loving gay and lesbian couples should not be denied the ability to make the same lifelong commitment as everyone else and Blankenhorn’s agreement with that proposition puts him in the mainstream of American opinion.“What David Blankenhorn has shown the world is that through careful deliberation and a deepening understanding of LGBT people, one can only draw the conclusion that the answer is full equality. While it can be difficult as a public figure to change course, I applaud him for taking a courageous and principled stand. His experience wrestling with the issue of marriage equality and coming out on the right side of history will be an inspiration to millions of fair-minded Americans who are in the same place.”




I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.
12 Comments


After I stopped roaring with laughter over the headline, I paused and considered. I sat thru about half FDL’s liveblog of the trial. I’m not so sure the cause of marriage equality will be done any good by having such a numbnut support it. His testimony was incoherent.
Well, except for the embarrassment factor, and that’s pretty powerful.
And then there were none…..except Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher.
It’s nice to see one of the foremost opponents of marriage equality “evolving” on the issue, but reading his comment, it’s obvious he still doesn’t get it: marriage is not a “private ordering” for gays or anyone else. The whole point is that marriage is a social institution, a life-stage event, and a matter for community recognition and the term carries a special and specific meaning. (Which was recognized by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge.) That’s the real reason that civil unions or domestic partnerships aren’t good enough, and that’s the main reason that it’s so important that gay relationships be recognized under the same terms as straight ones.
It’s sort of sad when someone who has made a name for himself as a proponent of traditional marriage doesn’t even have a clear idea of the institution’s foundations.
Yay, the stupidest man in the Prop 8 courtroom now supports marriage equality!
I know we’re supposed to welcome converts to the cause, but he certainly wasted a lot of people’s time entertaining us with his convoluted logic and unwillingness to speak candidly with attorney David Boies. Boies was incredibly patient with Blankenhorn, demolishing him with his own words and writings while allowing him to dig himself deeper and deeper and deeper.
At the end of his testimony — and recall he was the ONLY witness for the defense — he was completely demolished. People in the courtroom were openly laughing at him and even the very fair Judge Walker was asking incredulous questions of Blankenhorn, unwilling to believe an intelligent person would permit himself to be called to the stand in a court of law to say such idiotic things.
So, yeah — okay, great. Welcome to the side of the angels, David. But it’ll be awhile before you get to be a Grand Marshal at the Parade.
A long while.
And it is certainly true that he made his own name for himself as an ‘expert’ — none of his work has ever been peer-reviewed and his Institute was clearly founded to address his unemployability.
Brian Brown was photographed arriving in SF this morning and buying a BART ticket. It’s Pride weekend there, so I suppose there’s some hope for an intensive recruitment session in the back room of the PowerHouse.
Not if I can help it
He’ll “support” marriage equality…as long as we allow him to define marriage as a solely private affair and accept his implication that we’re incapable of effective parenting.
Thanks, Dave, but piss off.
I actually caught him in an outright fabrication in one of his writings — he claimed the the UN Convention on the Rights of Children stipulated that children have a “right” to be raised by their biological parents. No such thing. In fact, the Convention is quite clear that children deserve a supportive home, but also quite clearly refers to “parent(s) or Guardians.”
He and Robert George are the intellectual underpinnings of the anti-marriage brigade, and from my experience, neither of them can reason his way through an open door.
I just read the NYT piece — he did it again — same claim, same BS. I looked up the convention, and found a different version than the one I originally read. This one states in Article 7:
“1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”
It goes on to stipulate, in Article 9:
“1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.”
So I amend my earlier remark: it’s not an outright fabrication, but is a self-serving interpretation: children have the right to be raised by their [biological] parents, except. . . .
The idea that marriage unites children with their biological parents is blatantly false in many places. Often it’s about legally tying children to the parents who raise them. There are many places (if not most?) where a father is legally the parent of a child born to his wife even if there is no chance that he is the biological father. In Iowa that has been the case since 1945! (case about a man returning from war to his pregnant wife) Usually that’s also extended to same-sex families when their relationships are recognized.
Perhaps he’s decided to try some of Porno Pete’s “research” techniques.
Or else he’s joining one of the loudmouths-with-megaphones brigades, so he can charge all of his travel expenses to NOM.