Connect with us

Top Prop 8 Witness Now Supports Gay Marriage For ‘The Good That It Can Do’

Published

on

David Blankenhorn, a top witness for the supporters of Prop 8, today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage “for the good that it can do.” In a New York Times op-ed, “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed,” Blankenhorn laments the continuing decline of the institution of marriage, but adds that “if fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage overall, I think we’d have seen some signs of it by now.”

READ: An Embarrassing Reconciliation On Gay Marriage

Blankenhorn, who is founder and president of the Institute for American Values, writes about “comity,” “respect for an emerging consensus,” and the primary importance of “the equal dignity of homosexual love,” and states that “legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness,” while adding, “I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same.”

Writing, “the time has come for me , [sic] to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do,” Blankenhorn doubles-down on his his support for the institution of marriage as “a gift that society bestows on its children.” In Blankenhorn’s mind — and in the mind of the religious right — from the dawn of time, the primary reason for marriage, created by God, first and foremost, is to protect children, not to protect or enhance the lives of husbands and wives. He insists, “I am not recanting any of it.”

I opposed gay marriage believing that children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn’t just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right.

Marriage is how society recognizes and protects this right. Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children.

At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift. No same-sex couple, married or not, can ever under any circumstances combine biological, social and legal parenthood into one bond. For this and other reasons, gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization, by which I mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law and custom from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s licensing of private relationships that are privately defined.

Blankenhorn concludes:

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. For example, once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that getting married before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace? Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation? Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?

Will this strategy work? I don’t know. But I hope to find out.

He would do well to ask his friends on the anti-gay right, like Robert P. George, Maggie Gallagher, and Bryan Fischer, for starters.

Blankenhorn was been touted by the right as an “expert witness” against the right of same-sex couples to marry. Upon cross examination in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 trial, he actually was forced to admit, “I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.” In his decision, Prop 8 judge Vaughn Walker ruled Blankenhorn to be not an “expert witness,” and called his anti-gay marriage testimony “unreliable.” NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher has regularly pointed to Blankenhorn as a reliable source in her fight against same-sex marriage.

Blankenhorn, author of several books on “traditional” marriage and fatherhood has also lectured against same-sex marriage, and yet is perhaps best known for a comment he was forced to concede during the Prop 8 trial. Let’s close on that remark:

“We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.”

 Hat-tip: Good As You

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Conservative Columnist Torches Trump ‘Cultists’ Over Their ‘Two-Step Around Reality’

Published

on

The Dispatch‘s national correspondent, Kevin D. Williamson, wants to ask Republicans a question.

He points to the $270 it takes to fill up the tank of a Ford Super Duty truck in his neighborhood — 48 gallons at $5.60 a gallon for diesel — and asks, “Do you feel smart?”

Citing a column by The New York Times’ Bret Stephens, Williamson weighs the pros and cons of voters electing candidates to achieve results over voters choosing “paragons of moral rectitude.”

“There is something to be said for that approach,” writes Williamson. “One of the problems with our politics is that politicians—especially presidents—are treated as embodiments of the nation, the people, and our values, to such an extent that members of a party feel alienated and humiliated when the other party’s leader occupies the White House.”

He concludes that for partisans, “inconvenient facts necessitate a kind of rhetorical two-step.”

“There are proud Trump cultists and there are embarrassed Trump cultists, and, if you press one of the latter on Trump’s viciousness—his dishonesty, his infidelity, his venality, his susceptibility to flattery, his inconstancy—he often will retreat into comfortable pragmatism,” Williamson writes.

They will say they like Trump’s “policies,” which, Williamson charges, “mainly indicates the economic conditions coincident with Trump’s first term in office, pre-COVID, which were only to a very minor degree the result of any Trump policy.”

But press the embarrassed Trump cultist further — like on the $270 tank fill-up — and they will “retreat into moralism, albeit a negative kind of moralism based in the perceived deficiencies of the Democrats rather than in any of Trump’s particular moral virtues, which, it is plain, simply do not exist.”

When Republicans insist Americans “think of the policies,” Williamson says he wonders “what those beneficial policies are.”

“The illegally initiated and incompetently executed war in Iran that is the proximate cause of that $270 diesel bill? The obviously criminal massacres of civilians on the high seas? The gross self-dealing and corruption? The elevation of wildly unqualified yes-men such as Bill Pulte to high office? The deepening debt? The rising inflation?”

Williamson says that they like the policies, “Except for the inflation, and the trade chaos, and the war, and the corruption, and the enshrinement of utter incompetence.”

He says that you “can two-step around reality any way you like, but the fact is that right now Republicans are offering both Ken Paxton and $5.60 diesel. And so I repeat the question to my Republican friends: ‘Do you feel smart?'”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Letter From Deep Red Florida Torches ‘Low Self-Esteem’ MAGA Voters

Published

on

Port Charlotte, Florida, is part of Charlotte County — which voted for President Donald Trump by a solid two-to-one margin in 2024. It was named one of the top ten places to retire in 2012.

Still seen as a deeply red state, Democrats are making inroads into the Sunshine State. Ahead of the August primary, in the race for governor, Republican Byron Donalds often polls ahead of Democrat David Jolly but only by single digits, according to data from The New York Times. Donald Trump won the state by 13 points in 2024.

A letter to the editor highly critical of President Donald Trump and his MAGA base in a Port Charlotte news outlet could be seen as surprising.

“MAGA crowd, Trump are all about winning,” reads the headline.

“Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have turned American politics into a fan-based team sport,” writes its author, Gayle Yarnall.

“Governing has become an us versus them rivalry regardless of the consequences. It is all about winning,” she laments.

“The 2024 election is long over. Yet, there are Trump signs, banners, and flags still posted around. It is akin to displaying the flag of your favorite teams like the Patriots or the Buckeyes. What is the purpose except to express that, ‘I’m on a winning team’?” Yarnall asks.

“No one will be persuaded to vote for Trump. The election is done and he won. Is there any memory of Reagan, Biden, Bush, Obama, or Clinton flags or signs posted months or years after the election? Of course not.”

Yarnall calls the still-flying banners and flags “visual reminders” for “those with low self-esteem, feeling left out and unheard.”

“They scream, ‘look at me, we won, I’m on a winning team,'” she says.

“Even when gas prices spike, the cost of tariffs are passed on, a war continues, inflation is rising in all sectors it matters not because my team won.”

In a last-ditch plea, Yarnall asks her neighbors, “Please remember to vote!”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

Conservative Insider Throws Cold Water on GOP’s Midterm Confidence

Published

on

Right-wing journalist Ben Domenech isn’t aligned with GOP wisdom that the Republican Party should do well in the November midterm elections. In a lengthy written conversation with The New York Times, Domenech says he is “skeptical.”

“Republicans still seem to think that, thanks to redistricting and their advantages in fund-raising, they could buck historical trends and hold on, perhaps even in the House,” Domenech told the Times’ John Guida. “They’re just scared about gas prices. Personally, I’m skeptical.”

Looking specifically at Maine, which Republicans see as the “linchpin” to holding the Senate majority, according to Guida, Domenech also sends a warning. The race will be between U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Democratic insurgent newcomer Graham Platner, who has already faced numerous scandals.

“The interesting thing about this whole focus on Maine is that if you talk to Senate Republican staff and consultants, they’re actually less worried about it than other states,” says Domenech. “This is partially because of Platner’s shall we say unique collection of scandals and challenges, but it’s also because of enormous faith in Collins as a survivor.”

Collins, 73, is running for her sixth term after being first elected in 1996.

Guida points to a Politico report on a memo that states: “the political fundamentals in Maine remain challenging, and it is a fatal mistake to assume Platner is too damaged to win.”

“I think that’s correct,” says Domenech, “and top Republicans should actually be more concerned.”

“Platner clearly has energy behind him. He speaks to a desire on the left for a strong message, and he’s shown no signs of bowing to pressure to get out for a more centrist-coded candidate,” he adds. “Collins is absolutely capable of winning, but national assumptions are taking over based on her last election, in 2020, when she came back from what seemed like a deep hole by keeping her campaign hyperlocal.”

Domenech says that Republicans do have some concerns, specifically about three states Donald Trump won by double digits in 2024: Alaska, Iowa and Ohio.

In Ohio, former U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown is seeking to return to the Senate, and is running against “an appointee who has never won a Senate election, Jon Husted.”

In Alaska, Democrat Mary Peltola is running against Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent who “has the advantage there, but again, we’re talking about a unique state, and Peltola is an Alaska Native,” says Domenech. That race is now considered a “toss up” by The Center for Politics’ “Crystal Ball,” which also now rates the Ohio race as a “toss up.”

Iowa could become a difficult race for Republicans as well. Domenech warns it “could turn out to be a real test for Trump’s tariff policies, which have been a decidedly mixed bag in many of the states that backed him. The president will probably have to take that argument to the people of Iowa himself.”

Overall, says Domenech, Republicans’ confidence “comes from a belief that Democratic radicalism, particularly the various examples of what they view as a renewed cultural leftism in opposition to Trump during his first term, will play in their favor.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.