The first ever “Let’s Talk” segment at the Huffington Post features David and Jonathan conversing about a new marriage conversation.
“Welcome to the debut of HuffPost’s new “Let’s Talk” feature. Look forward to reading some of the most thoughtful and provocative conversations between fascinating people on the web.
In this chat: Gay activist, author and Brookings scholar Jonathan Rauch discusses gay marriage with David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn recently became the subject of controversy amongst conservatives for coming out in favor of gay marriage.
Jonathan: OK, David. So you changed your mind on gay marriage. Now what?…” Read more…
Categories: General
I have 2 problems with this whole idea.
First. The seeming unwillingness of pro-marriage advocates to address income inequality as the root cause of marriage collapse. The unwillingness of pro-marriage advocates to engage with the economic realities of 30 years of failed Republican & Neo-liberal economic policy in any meaningful way. As long as the trend line discussion is about the ’60′s, the sexual revolution & feminism you are on your own.
Secondly, I won’t sit down with bomb throwers of any ilk or persuasion on any side for any reason. If you want to talk about procreative prostitutes and sexual predators and parents creating children as accessories or Hand Maiden’s tale made flesh in India. You are SOL.
My guess is a lot of people you need to support you feel the same way.
“One in which liberals support marriage even when the word “gay” is not in front of it…”
David, you’ve made this kind of statement before and I do wish you’d expound on why you think liberals are unsupportive of marriage, either in words or deeds.
You have a fundamental need to extract marriage from the political realm if you hope to create something new, a conversation or whatever. I don’t think it’s helpful to what you say you want to do, and I don’t think it is particularly accurate, to label liberals are anti-marriage, unless it’s gay marriage.
Interesting discussion. Lots that is ripe for discussion. Here is one thought. While homosexuals cannot, by themselves, restore the institution of marriage, each new and stable marriage does move us a little bit in this direction. Denying gay couples the right to wed does not save any straight marriage. Allowing gay couples to wed does lead to more stable relationships for those couples (not perfectly stable as already proven by straight couples) and this might lead to more stability for the rest of society. I see no down side for any except for those who insist that marriage is a zero sum game, folks who will have their feelings hurt because they are no longer viewed as superior by the law.
@Mont D Law – did you read the article? It talks a lot about income inequality.
Kevin, I found the whole quote inspiring.
“My belief — to be more accurate, my hope — is that in this broad land, there is a new pro-equality, pro-family coalition waiting to be born. One that takes marriage seriously as a foundation of our civil society. One in which liberals support marriage even when the word “gay” is not in front of it. One in which social conservatives are pro-family enough to break bread with gays who are pro-family. And one in which gays fighting for access to marriage also want to leave the institution better off than they found it. A coalition, in short, that might, if successful, put an end forever to the conflict between gay rights and family values.”
I think in context it isn’t a huge attack on liberals.
I think it’s fair to say that in the past a lot of the push to strengthen marriage came from the conservative side of the aisle. I think this is unfortunate.
No. I refuse to endorse any conversation that “does not presuppose or require agreement on gay marriage.”
This gay man will not validate as legitimate the view that there is any legitimate, secular, non-prejudiced justification for bans on gay marriage.
I will not participate in a conversation in which I’m told to shut up about my own subordination and pretend that bigotry can be set aside as immaterial.
Nor is it consistent with equality to impose some special obligation on gays and lesbians to live any differently from the heterosexual majority.
David Blankenhorn is in no position to exact some obligation for us to all do his bidding in exchange for access to legal equality. Equality doesn’t work that way.
Imagine the arrogance of a southern segregationist telling blacks that he’d deign to allow them to attend white schools as long as they all outperform white students. That’s not equality. It’s a continued attitude of superiority and domination.
I utterly reject it.
Jonathan is a very bright guy. At times he can be insufferable. However, he is right that marriage’s failure as an institution is about class bifurcation.
I might have said this before; The problem is not that John is marrying Jim instead of Judy. The problem is that John is still living at home with his parents because he cannot get a decent paying (possibly unionized) job.
What Jonathan has not said is that I blame the tax code for much of what ails us. Reagan and Clinton are equally to blame for not appreciating how tax law influences behavior. It’s why we are spawning too many Mitts in contrast to people who want to actually make stuff.
“I think it’s fair to say that in the past a lot of the push to strengthen marriage came from the conservative side of the aisle. I think this is unfortunate.”
I’d need to see some evidence of that. Sure, conservatives love their “pro-family” rhetoric, which they trot out between committing adultery and getting divorced. I don’t see covenant marriage getting many takers, even among conservatives.
I’m just saying it’s a needless political jab, unless it’s meant as a dog whistle to conservatives that, deep down, it’s that still business as usual.
Stephen Clark:
David not only changed his mind but he did so very publicly knowing how much it would cost him – including some of the largest contributors to IAV. I give him a pass on all past transgressions. What he is doing now is far more important than contrition.
“Our” amicus briefs start coming in on the 28th and March 1 for the Prop 8 and DOMA cases respectively. I expect to see David’s Times piece as an exhibit to many of these.
David Hart, I thank you for tacitly conceding that Blankenhorn has exhibited ZERO contrition. I agree. He has not. Nor, contrary to your characterization, has he “changed his mind.” I quote from his vaunted op-ed in the New York Times:
“I have written these [anti-gay] things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I AM NOT RECANTING ANY OF IT.” (emphasis added)
You are obviously entitled to coddled him if you like. I have no intention of doing so.
The very idea that the equality of gays and lesbians depends in any way on what David Blankenhorn thinks was thoroughly debunked by his pathetic performance on the witness stand in the Prop. 8 trial. Nor do I have any emotional need for his grudging tolerance of my equality because he has lost his war to deny it. And he is certainly in no superior position to imperiously demand commitments from me in order for me to secure my own equality.
Let me reiterate my very first point, which you ignored. I refuse to participate in any marriage conversation in which gays and lesbians are told to shut up about gay marriage and to stipulate to the legitimacy of a discriminatory position grounded in nothing but chauvinism and bigotry. Nor, for that matter, will I stipulate to the legitimacy of his dehumanizing disregard for my infertile heterosexual friends whose pain he mocks by tacitly deriding their marriages because they fail to conform to his kindergarten conception of marriage. He doesn’t recant any of it, as he has made very clear.
It was his choice to wallow in the cesspool of anti-gay bigotry for the last decade–and it is a choice he defiantly refuses to disavow. That choice has consequences. It has consequences for his ability to be a vehicle for the kind of conversation he now wants, and it apparently has consequences for the finances of his organization. Both were completely foreseeable, and neither is my problem. There are plenty of worthy organizations and open-minded people who can engage in the kind of discussion he proposes without having to constantly step lightly around his hubris.
Stephen Clark:
I am going to pass over the ugly name-calling, but one sentence in one of your several comments caught my eye:
David Blankenhorn is in no position to exact some obligation for us to all do his bidding in exchange for access to legal equality. Equality doesn’t work that way.
I coudn’t agree more. Nothing I say or do is intended as an attempt to “exact some obligation” from you or anyone in exchange for marriage equality or anything else. As you say, equality doesn’t work that, and frankly, the last thing I’d want is for you or anyone to be a part of anything I’m a part of because of a belief that some “obligation” is in my view owed to me or has been extracted by me. Period. Totally. 100 percent. I am only interested in working with people who choose to do things for the same reason I choose to — because they think it’s a good idea. You don’t think it’s a good idea. Fine. Go in peace.
David Blankenhorn: “[Y]ou [Rauch] and other gay Americans HAVE SOME PRETTY HEAVY LIFTING TO DO. It’s not exactly like you’re expected to rescue the institution of marriage from all the abuse it has taken from heterosexuals in recent decades — BUT IT’S SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD! You are definitely SUPPOSED TO HELP THINGS GET BETTER. You are definitely (UNLIKE plenty of HETEROSEXUALS) SUPPOSED TO DO YOUR BEST TO BE GOOD STEWARDS of the institution.”
Your Huffington Post commentary would appear to require some significant revision if you are to harmonize it with your newly articulated position.
And, no, my choices are not limited to joining your conversation or shutting up.
There was no name-calling anywhere in my comments, just as there has been no recantation or contrition in anything you’ve written.
Later this year, my same-sex partner and I will be celebrating our 19th anniversary. That time includes 15 years as registered domestic partners, as we registered in 1998 as soon as any state allowed it. As you may know, that registration is terminable at will. Ours endures notwithstanding.
Shall we get married, as we are contemplating? Or would you prefer that the stability and longevity of our commitment continue to stand–as it has for all of our heterosexual acquaintances–as a living refutation of your insistence upon the necessity of a binding marriage for a durable commitment?
Mr. Blankenhorn writes:
The LGBTQ Community is divided, Mr. Blankenhorn, in our opinions about you, your goals, and your motives. I understand that you are now endeavoring to straddle two communities that ought to have parallel goals of strengthening families and communities but, due to religious fundamentalism and bigotry and ignorance on the part of the so-called pro-family groups and due to years of being bullied and harassed and discriminated against and being left as a second or third tier caste in society on the part of the LGBTQ Community, do not trust each other and each fears the other.
Religious fundamentalism is probably beyond reach. But the rest of us have the ability to talk and to work toward common goals. There are a few details that might help here. Here is an answer to Stephen Clark’s question:
The answer must come in two parts. First, it is healthy for our society as a whole to have stable communities and stable relationships within those communities. This means that marriage, the long-term legal binding together of a couple, should be encouraged for all consenting adults.
That being said, no one outside of that couple (and those who they seek for advice) should be dictating whether a couple weds, goes with a weaker legal bond, or has no legal bond whatsoever. If marriage is forced, that is as bad or worse as marriage denied (thinking of extremes like polygamous cults).
If Stephen and his husband (after nineteen years that is an appropriate term for his beloved) choose to wed, no one is harmed by their doing so. Marriage is not a zero sum game where a divorce must occur for them to marry. I cheer their tying the knot, if they so choose but only if it is their choice.
I agree with much of what Some Teacher says, but I may disagree with one thing.
The very problem here is Blankenhorn’s attempt to straddle gay and anti-gay and have it both ways. In this Huffington Post piece and elsewhere, he uses triumphal language of overcoming and transcendence. He wants to move beyond the gay marriage debate and bring everyone together to work on strengthening marriage for all. But the fine print makes clear that he isn’t overcoming or transcending anything.
In the actual terms of the conversation he wants, he doesn’t somehow move beyond the gay marriage debate at all. He simply censors it and tells us gay folks to shut up and bestow silent respect and validation upon discrimination and bigotry. Far from transcending the gay marriage debate, he just wants it marginalized, suppressed, and ignored. That is NOT bringing everyone together to work on strengthening marriage “for all.”
It never even gets to the point of trusting him because he very defiantly refuses to repudiate anything he has said or done and offer so much as a peep of contrition about a decade spent doing his best to render gays and lesbians second-class citizens. This is a man who willingly stepped onto a witness stand in California as part of a crusade against the equal dignity of gay couples, and he expects us to disregard that while he defiantly pounds his chest about standing by all of it? He’s not asking for trust; he’s just demanding silence and validation.
Everything the man continues to write makes crystal clear that the only reason he is not still engaged in his crusade against our equal dignity is because he realizes that his crusade has failed. Had he been more effective, had people held more resolute prejudice to exploit, had things gone differently, he would this very day still be fully engaged in his vigorous effort to deny our equal dignity under the law. Where’s the change of mind? Where’s the regret? Where’s the embarrassment? Where’s the apology? Where’s the contrition? Where’s the respect? Where’s the plea for forgiveness? Without those, he hasn’t transcended anything.
Diane wrote: “I think it’s fair to say that in the past a lot of the push to strengthen marriage came from the conservative side of the aisle. I think this is unfortunate.”
This is simply not true. The conservative “family values” movement has never been about strengthening marriage, it has always been about denying equal rights to gay people. In the name of family values, the right fought against nondiscrimination ordinances, backs amendments to deny equal protection of the law to gay people, etc.
Their lame attempts to promote “covenant marriage” and “abstinence education” have been dismal failures. Their entire approach to “strengthening marriage” has been to shame and coerce.
And I’m talking here the old-school virtues: faithfulness, monogamy, no children outside of marriage, to have and to hold until death do you part. Otherwise, why do any of us, gay or straight, need the thing in the first place?
David, you do realize that this is a conservative Christian idealization of marriage with the serial numbers filed off to make it appear secular? These are not “old-school virtues” – as I’m sure you remember all too well from the Proposition 8 trial, historically and worldwide marriage has not much been about monogamy or faithfulness or “no children outside of marriage” when we’re talking about the male half of the union nor about ’till death do us part’.
That aside, Stephen has correctly pointed out that there is a nasty tone in your HuffPo interview of ‘you people wanted marriage? well, you better be SUPER GOOD AT IT.’
Some Teacher:
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I agree with much of what you say, and will think further about all that you say.
Stephen Clark:
You may not have noticed, but the exchange with Rauch that you cite was intended, by both of us, as easy-going and conversational and humorous, the way friends talk to each other. You are turning it into something that it’s not.
You ask, “where’s the change of mind?” I say and have said repeatedly, I changed my mind on gay marriage from opposition to support.
You say, my only reason for changing is because I knew the fight was lost. You are wrong. I have written and spoken about this many times, and in my view your charge is damnably false.
You say that you aren’t calling me names. I say, you call me someone who wallows in bigotry and denies the equal dignity of others.
It’s also interesting that, in general in your many comments on this thread, you are not talking to me but about me, using this blog to tell others, with apparently perfect confidence, what I think and what I’ve done and what my inner motives are.
However, since I’m me, and you’re not, I’d like to point out that your confident announcements to the world about who I am and what I’ve done and what I am trying to do bear no resemblence, in my view, to who I am and what I’ve done and what I’m trying to do now. But why bother saying any of this? You seem already to know everything there is to know.
David, your willingness to work with those with whom you profoundly disagree on some things in pursuit of shared goods, is treated as an act of betrayal by those who wish, as human beings do, to circle around their sacred object with great purity, right and left.
In many ways what you are doing now–trying to rescue marriage from the culture wars–is what you were trying to do in 1990.
Its much harder now, because the overlap is so much less. It is one thing to set aside in pursuit of the shared good of marriage, your differences over abortion, etc. It is another thing to set aside in pursuit of marriage, your dispute about what marriage is and why and how it matters.
Removing marriage from being a sacred object around which we circle and into an instrumental good also has its losses.
Nonetheless it is a brave and not ignoble effort.
The Stephens of the world will naturally use this website to express their sense of your inadequacy in circling around their sacred object. You are not one of the “team.” The fact you don’t denounce me is proof enough (merely disagreeing vehemently with my views would not be good enough).
Escaping from the narrow-mindedness imposed by teams is one of the challenges of the intellectual class (right and left) of our times.
Mr. Blankenhorn writes:
While this is true, I am sure that you can understand why many of us simultaneously cheer your change of mind and still don’t quite trust. After being burned many times, one fears getting to near to fire.
I do not pretend to speak for the LGBTQ Community, although I hope many would agree with me, when I say that my interest is in full equality which includes but is not limited to legal marriage. In most states I can be fired because of who I love. I understand that you choose to limit your discussion primarily to marriage, but that is only a part of the legal discrimination that places me as a 2nd class citizen in the United States.
Ms. Gallagher writes in response to Mr. Blankenhorn:
Your fight to maintain what you believe to be sacred within your religion is fine … within your religion. That you continue to fight to constrain my religion is not fine. Civil marriage must be equal. Your religion can be whatever you and your priest or pastor or shaman want … none of my business. My religion should be none of your business.
Stephen,
I understand why you’re angry. You feel like you’ve had your personhood denied for many years. That would make anyone angry.
But I think a few of your comments miss the point of the New Conversation and misunderstand David.
You say:
This claim is objectively false. David does not want gay people to shut up in their advocacy of gay marriage. The gay people who signed the Call never would have signed if that were what David had asked them to do. That would be completely unreasonable.
Indeed, some conservatives have written that they refuse to sign precisely because they feel like the Call accepts marriage equality as a starting premise.
Finally, many gay leaders have (correctly) realized that it makes a lot of strategic sense in fighting for gay marriage to argue to conservatives that gay marriage is a family value. The Call will help with that strategy.
When David said “Go in peace,” he didn’t mean “shut up.” I’m pretty sure he meant that you are an autonomous human being who does not need to join the New Marriage Conversation coalition if you don’t want to. I think that’s the opposite of disrespectful.
Stephen, ten years ago, when David was on that witness stand, he famously said that “We will be more American on the day we accept gay marriage.” He also said elsewhere (before he changed his mind) that he believes in the “equal dignity of homosexual love.” Those comments do not sound like the words of someone “wallowing in bigotry.”
At any rate, David has said over and over and over again (most recently, a few minutes ago) that he did change his mind. His June op-ed was subtle, and the quote that you cited was taken out of context. Listen to his interview with Mark Oppenheimer for a fuller explanation.
That’s not what he was saying. He was saying that gay people have a great opportunity (indeed, one that might not be as open to straight people) to strengthen the Institution they have been struggling so hard to gain access to. That strikes me as uncontroversial and respectful. No one expects gay people to be perfect any more than they expect straight people to be perfect. As David says, it was a casual conversation between friends.
Stephen, no one is telling to shut up. You can continue preaching angrily to the choir ’til the cows come home. But don’t expect to change many hearts or minds.
David,
Interesting conversation at HuffPo. One thing I’m not clear on about the New Conversation is whether or not same-sex marriage can be a part of the conversation, or if that topic is an “old” one that is taboo to talk about?
I would not expect same-sex marriage to be a dominant topic within the New Conversation, but as a supporter of same-sex marriage and a lesbian, I’m not sure what would motivate large numbers of LGB people and people who think this is still a big issue that needs to be resolved to sign on to a conversation about marriage where this topic is off the table.
That being said, I think you and I are on the same page about being tired of the “culture wars” and toxic rhetoric surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage, and that’s why I’m intrigued and (cautiously) supportive of this New Conversation.
Stephen,
It’s rude to talk about David, rather than with him, as though he’s not here, given that he’s participating in this comment thread and willing to engage with you and other commenters.
I was not referring to my religion. Best, Maggie
One of the things cultural liberalism is remarkably good at is defining its own sacred objects as neutral and other people’s sacred objects as “religious” and therefore tabu.
When I referred to marriage as a sacred object I did not mean the specific theological tradition in which I shared but the sense of sacred with which the common marriage project was nonethless embued even to people without strong religious views.
For some it might simply be the idea of “love” that is sacred, or the idea of commitment, or the idea of equality (man that one is a sacred object).
By focusing on the problems to be solved and the problems they create for children, David is trying to bridge a great gap and divide. But it requires I think, descralization and instrumentalization. Perhaps not we’ll see.
But the pushback from gay marriage advocates has to do with that sense your project does not share in its sacralization.
Side note: the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of abstinence-only education is not what you think. I’ve seldom seen a study as beautifully designed as this one:
Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months
A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents FREE
John B. Jemmott, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.267. Text Size: A A A
Article
Figures
Tables
References
Comments
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT | METHODS | RESULTS | COMMENT | AUTHOR INFORMATION | REFERENCES
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.
Design Randomized controlled trial.
Setting Urban public schools.
Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.
Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.
Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.
Results The participants’ mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.
Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.
Ms. Gallagher writes:
Sacred, as used by most of us, means religious. Marriage exists both as a religious construct and as a civil construct. As I wrote above, I really don’t care what you and your religion do within that context. But you are not limiting yourself to your religion. Ms. Gallagher, your efforts have been to limit both my civil rights and the legal limits of my religion. That is why I object to your mission.
Marriage of consenting adults, outside of the religious discussion, seems like an obvious candidate for equality. If my partner and I wed, we add an element of stability to our relationship. That stability might keep us together longer, keep us owning our home together longer, keep our employment more stable, thus being good for both social and economic aspects of society.
As you know, different societies have enjoyed different definitions of marriage over the millenia. Different societies in today’s world have different definitions of marriage. Denial of equality because you feel that your civil definition of sacred in the context of marriage is violated does not make sense.
@David Hart – what exactly do you blame about the tax code for what ails us now?
I doubt that liberals are any more guilty of feeling their policies are value-neutral than conservatives are. Liberals are certainly a lot less guilty of running roughshod over other peoples’ lives in crafting social policies though.
It seems to me a conversation about marriage can proceed on parallel tracks if need be, if legal same-sex marriage has become a sticking point. In fact, the more the discussion talks about marriage and what it is, the more people can see how relevant it is to gay and lesbian couples, particularly those raising children. Supporters of equal legal rights for gays and lesbians WANT these discussions to continue, as the result has been a huge shift in public opinion. Let’s talk about it, talk about it some more, and talk about it even more. The conversation has moved public opinion in one direction, for the good.
Just because David Blankenhorn was not always a supporter of same-sex marriage doesn’t mean he is forever tainted LOL. That he once opposed but now supports is extremely powerful, and shows the way for others; it is permission to others to do the same. He is perhaps more powerful to the movement to secure equal legal rights for gay and lesbian citizens as someone who changed his position than someone who has always supported marriage equality. This is particularly true since the notion that the legal rights of a minority depend upon permission from the majority has unfortunately gained so much traction.
Basically, I thought it was a really great discussion.
The discussion here shows the problem ahead. If you want to have a coalition, you have to put aside the question of same sex marriage at least while you are working together. Some people on either side aren’t going to be willing to do that.
It’s completely reasonable for someone who is fighting for same-sex marriage to say, well, we don’t have it everywhere yet, and I want to focus my energy on that.
It’s also reasonable for other people who want to focus on strengthening marriage in general to try to go forward doing that.
Schroeder, it was only three years ago, not ten years ago that David testified against same-sex marriage.
I accept that David changed his mind and I admire him for doing so.
But the IAV has more to answer for. I remember some “psuedo-scholarship” issued by the IAV that was designed specifically to attack “non-traditional” families, which included families headed by gay and lesbian partners.
And this very blog frequently features some very anti-gay rhetoric, often in cross-posted articles that originate on the Witherspoon Institute or the NOM blog or other right-wing publications. Some of the bloggers, here, especially Alana S., seem absolutely exempt from any obligation to write about gay people with respect. And when she is challenged, the challengers have their comments deleted, but not her.
As long as this blog and the IAV is perceived as anti-gay, only gay people like Jonathan Rauch will be willing to sign on to any “new conversation.”
Some Teacher. Yes I used without attribution Prof. Jonathan Haidt’s phrase so your reaction was understandable. See, for example, http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Diane, understand that there’s a huge difference between wanting to set aside an issue for a later time if you support the status quo.
There is something inherently disrespectful to gay and lesbian couples about trying to get a marriage conversation to move forward while same-sex marriage is still illegal in most places. To wit: “we think marriage is so important we need to have a national conversation about it, but you gays aren’t allowed to have access to it.”
Can you see how that might be a problem? Why not advocate legalizing it in all 50 states, as soon as possible, to remove it as a sticking point or a distraction?
My bad. I was thinking of 2003 when he first announced his opposition.
David Blankenhorn:
I’m aware of the tone of the piece. I’m also aware that the passage I have block-quoted disclosed a pettiness and resentfulness toward gay couples, as Mark Oppenheimer has correctly summarized it above.
You have changed your POSITION on gay marriage from opposition to “acceptance” (your word). When it comes to having changed your mind, however, you have not recanted anything (your statement). Rather, you have “compromised” your beliefs (your word) to avoid further denigration of people, to avoid continuing to fight, and because you have lost (your explanations). I daresay if opposition to gay marriage somehow surged 10 points in the polls and had a positive trend line, you’d halt your tactical retreat and change your position back. After all, you don’t recant anything you’ve said (your statement).
As for my characterizing your views, you are perfectly free to express them yourself. If you are so inclined, you can recant your past views, apologize for what you’ve done (41 state and 1 federal ban still extant), and ask gay folks for forgiveness (which I, for one, am prepared to grant). But I have not seen those things elsewhere, and you have studiously avoided them here.
What you want is for us all to say it’s okay that you’ve spent more than a decade working to keep us relegated to second-class status. What you want is for us all to say it’s okay that you’ve demeaned our commitments (and those of our infertile heterosexual friends). What you want is for us to say it’s okay that you’ve inflicted pain and injury. Well, it’s not okay. And you haven’t made amends for it. You just want us all to act like it never happened.
Here’s the thing, though: If you look at the polls, it’s clear that many of the gains for equality has come because a huge number of people are changing their minds.
(There are also demographic reasons, due to older voters leaving the pool (alas) and younger voters entering. But that alone isn’t nearly enough to account for how quickly the polls have turned in favor of same-sex marriage.)
The gains same-sex marriage have made are, to a great extent, because so many people who used to oppose equality have come over to our side. And the gains we make in the future will, to a great extent, because a lot of the people who currently oppose equality are going to change their minds.
I don’t think we should write off David Blankenhorn or anyone else. Because people changing their minds is how we win.
David is perfectly capable of articulating his own views. I see few who understand what I think he clearly said.
He always saw gay marriage as a “conflict of goods.” Our marriage tradition, as we understood it, was not irrational but based on some real and enduring human needs and problems. If the question is: what is marriage? David answered: a union of husband and wife.
But bundled with that question is another question: What do we think about the equal dignity of gay people?
He eventually decided that he himself could not on his own decided the gay marriage debate was about the first question; when it became clear to hi it was about the second question, he endorsed gay marriage.
My 2 cents, only:
A conversation about ‘equality’ needs to take place, first. Without that, we’ll be stuck playing, “I didn’t get my share”, “I’m left out” … you’re privileged, I’m not.
Maggie wrote:
“What do we think about the equal dignity of gay people?”
The heart of the issue lies here. What does equal dignity mean … for any of us? Does gay = str8? Very dicey questions need to be addressed, first … to move this conversation off the dime it’s now stuck on.
I would add: this is obviously dissatisfying to many on both sides, but it has its own integrity as a point of view, that I can respect, if not agree with.
David Blankenhorn:
I was thinking about this last night. I tend to approach problems as a W. Edwards Deming oriented consultant and something is missing here. What’s missing is a clear understand of the problem articulated by the numbers. Exactly how do we measure the state of marriage?I honestly don’t know. Is it the roughly 50% divorce rate or the fact that roughly a third of our children are living with a single parent or no parent. IIRC, in 1960 that was about 15%.
Unless that is clearly understood, there is no way to measure either progress or deterioration.
Barry, it is – in my opinion – about perspective. What I think is happening is that people appreciate the fact that, if a few gay people get hitched, the planet is not going to spin off into space.
Moreover, the population is appreciating us as mother and fathers. If cohabiting adults with children want to get married, why would anyone want to stop that?
I think that society has pretty much thrown in the towel on “reorienting” gays to straights.
Teresa asks:
Of course gay does not equal straight. But that is no different that short not being equal to tall or, more to the point, Black not being equal to White. Being short, gay, and melanin-challenged, does not mean that I should be denied equality under the law based on any of these criteria.
It does mean that I am have a much greater challenge to be hired as a basketball player, although a few extraordinary short (under six and a half feet tall) players are there. Since I am not even six feet tall, the odds don’t look good. But that does not mean that I should be banned from the court or even from try-outs.
Loving v. Virginia does not say that Blacks and Whites are equal (neither does it say that we are not equal). It says that we all have the right to marry without regard to color or race.
If you want to believe that I am inferior because I am not heterosexual, you are entirely welcome to your viewpoint. Where I object is when you carry your discrimination into legislation. The law needs to be blind to many things, including sexuality. Currently I can be fired because of who I love in twenty-nine states. That makes me a second class citizen and I object.
Nonetheless, I exist!
Stephen:
I was shot in the back, point-blank, with a .45. I am pissed off at most of the planet. The reason that I oppose capital punishment is because, if I ever caught the guy who shot me, I would kill him. As a society, we should be better than that.
Anger gets us nowhere. If Maggie decides tomorrow to support marriage equality for the benefit of society, I can accept that. OTOH, if Maggie makes what I consider a dishonest argument in support of banning gay marriage, I am going to take considerable issue with it and probably flail away on my blog.
David now support equal marriage. That is all that I need to know,. “… that is all ye need to know.” hehe
“Does gay = str8?”
Wrong question. Better one is, “do gay people have the same needs as straight people?” or as the law views things, “are gays and straights similarly situated?”
The more vital the right, the less room for discrimination, even on the “similarly situated” vector. Everyone agrees that marriage is a vital, even constitutional, right.
So there’s this disagreement about marriage rights…..why?
I do not think gay men are similarly situated to straight women, with regard to marriage. That’s a key point of disagreemeht.
Hi David Hart–
Great thoughts from you.
On question of measuring health of marriage, one proposal for a marriage index did it this way:
http://familyscholars.org/2009/10/01/the-marriage-index/
Maggie:
Is that related to marriage or child custody? I am not at all sure how you would defend that POV either way.
“I do not think gay men are similarly situated to straight women, with regard to marriage. That’s a key point of disagreemeht.”
I don’t think men are similarly situated to women with regard to supporting families, but we don’t deny women access to jobs, so men will have them.
You’re comparing the wrong things, for starters: couples get married, through mutual consent. Women do not decide the matter alone, and marriage is not solely beneficial to women. But I love seeing a woman finally admit that marriage is a better deal for women than for men!
Plus, denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples does nothing to stop different-sex couples from getting married.
You’re kind of in the wrong place at the wrong time, I’m afraid.
@Elizabeth Marquardt, thanks for the link and thanks for raising the question, David Hart.
I’m not really concerned if the proportion of the adult population dropped and I’m not sure that is a sign of health of marriage. If there are a lot of people who wish they could get married, but can’t, I’d be worried. As it is, I think that if people are getting married later, that’s okay.
I am most concerned that more children are being born without married parents and growing up without one parent.