The New York Times pushed this up on their site when they realized we were going to scoop them.
I do hope you’ll listen to Mark Oppenheimer’s terrific documentary, produced right here mainly by our own Patrick Skahill, about David Blankenhorn‘s life and the path that took him toward — and then away from — opposition to gay marriage. Pop the radio on at 1 p.m. or at 8 p.m. today. Or listen right here. (The transcript is there too.) You can stream it live at wnpr.org.
At 2 p.m. (and 9 p.m.) we’ll have a special, responding to the doc, hosted by Mr. Dankosky and Me.
David Blankenhorn
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
6 Responses to Today. Blankenhorn. Oppenheimer. Gay Marriage.
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
How long did it take him to figure this out? That it’s about marriage, period? Not what part goes where, but about two people who care about each other and would do anything for each other, til death do they part? That ALL marriages are worth strengthening, and any children involved would be raised in a loving, safer environment. It’s nice that he finally figured this out, but at what cost. After how much damage has been done?
What you really need is the contra point of view: someone who’s humanism deviated from Catholic faith and then returned.
You consecrated a Homosexual Greek Marriage?
How 300 BC progressive of you!
Wait. I’m having a Chion moment and finding many uses for her around the household. Paisan! Come mow the lawn naked and sing! With the guitar and winecup!
Did I lose my train of thought?
From Wiki: “In the decision filed on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Blankenhorn was not qualified as an expert witness, and that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight”.
—————————————————-
I find it funny that since his flip flop Blankenhorn’s thought has taken on a new gravitas among the Left and his testimony is now “reliable and entitled to weight and standing”.
Quoting from Gail Leobovitz’s research at the Brandeis Jewish Sexual Ethics Project which quotes Midrash and reflects the constant viewpoint among religious conservatives.
Genesis Rabbah 26:5
Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosef (said): The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote gemumasi’ot for (the union of a man to) a male or to an animal.
And
Leviticus Rabbah 23:9
The generation of the Flood were kings, and were only wiped off the earth because they were soaked in sexual sin…
http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/jewish/docs/essays/same-sex-marriage.pdf
The Hellenization of religion is an old topic and a recurring one. I don’t see the religious conservatives ever adopting Greek humanism as their credo and flip flopping like a Blankendorf and his ilk at the liberal churches.
As far as Prop 8 goes the Massachusetts case is more important. That’s the case the Right wants in front of the Supreme Court. The CA case was tied up in peculiarities of the CA appeals process rather than on the issue of same sex marriage itself. Ironically Judge Walker’s ruling will also ‘carry little weight’ in the eyes of the SCOTUS where I expect the Federal DOMA rules will be ruled legal, states free to determine their own marriage laws where state funding alone is involved, and states will be free to void certain licenses in-state from transplants with gay marriage licenses.
In other words the Federal Constitution contains no right to gay marriage hidden in its rights and penumbras. There’s no hidden right to polygamy or pet marriage either and no guarantee that polygamy must be called marriage rather than a Civil Union.
And how Blankenhorn became the spokesman for DOMA forces? For personal gain I hope. And I hope he milked this for all its worth.
The defense of Prop 8 in California was ill-funded and staffed by the third-line players: the first line players took a dive waiting for this to get to the SCOTUS. Same in Massachusetts.
It’s the easiest way to fast track cases to the SCOTUS.
I don’t think Maggie Gallagher will be testifying before the SCOTUS and I don’t thnk she would tell you either she or David Blankenhorn are testifying there. It will be the A-Team which is not the political arm.
Anti-gay marriage proponents like Blankenhorn offend adoptive parents of all stripes with their argument that marriage is first and foremost for the purpose of biological child bearing. Are they saying that married couples who don’t have biological children are not legitimately married? Adoptive parents and children have enough problems already, what with biological children being referred to as the “natural” children and media making a point of identifying adoptive children as such, while not doing the same for biological children.
As someone who is gay (and you do not speak for me btw), I would only ask Mr. McEnroe to show about 1/8th of the tolerance you show us homos to Catholics. The world is big enough for all of us bro. To each his own.
I certainly don’t agree with a lot of the teaching of that Church but then again I am not Catholic. I don’t like it when bigotry manfests itself towards anybody.
Its not gays under attack right now. It is the Catholic Church and their fundemental freedom of religion.