Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Opponent of Same-Sex Marriage Recants His Position, Fails to Impress Stalwart Bigots

Illustration for article titled Opponent of Same-Sex Marriage Recants His Position, Fails to Impress Stalwart Bigots

On Friday, David Blankenhorn, formerly an outspoken (and completely secular) opponent of same-sex marriage, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he explained how the homophobia that permeates the opposition to same-sex marriage has forced him to rethink his own views. Though he wrote that his "concerns" about same-sex marriage remain, he also thinks it's high-time that people stopped screening their bigotry behind debates about how sacred marriage is supposed to be.


Blankenhorn explained that he originally opposed gay marriage because "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," but because the opposition to same sex marriage seems to have taken an especially vitriolic turn, the only decent thing for America to do treat consenting adults exactly the same, regardless of their sexual orientation. "Whatever one's definition of marriage," wrote Blankenhorn, "legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness."

Predictably, Blankenhorn's former debate partners were upset, and seized the opportunity to voice their extremely erudite objections to same-sex marriage. Said Rev. Jim Garlow, history buff,

I am a student of history. Christianity has made clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. And what we have seen is that when you change marriage for some, you change marriage for all.


Let's not go into how much history Garlow is just ignoring — suffice it to say that neither he nor other like-minded bigots think too highly of Blankenhorn right now. In the wake of Blankenhorn's shift, the same-sex marriage opposition has lost one of its most notable secular allies. According to the Times, Blankenhorn, who wrote an influential book in 2007 called The Future of Marriage and also served as an expert witness against California's challenge to Proposition 8, stood out in the same-sex marriage debate because he didn't invoke biblical or religious justification when making his case. He employed, instead, the ever-popular "society is falling apart!" rallying cry, lamenting the deterioration of the marriage institution and trying to stop society's logically flawed tumble down a slippery slope of same-sex marriage.

Andrew Sullivan, writing for the Daily Beast, praised Blankenhorn's switch on Friday. Peter Sprigg, however, one of Blankenhorn's colleagues at the Family Research Council, made the charming quip that Blankenhorn had "thrown marriage under the bus for the sake of the homosexual movement." Ah, yes, that sinister homosexual movement aimed at providing equal rights for people regardless of what sort of genitals they're most attracted to — dangerous, that. It's a good thing marriage, that last obstacle to total gay domination, is being pummeled by the tires of the homosexual movement's bus.

Gay Marriage Gains Backer as Major Foe Revises View [NY Times]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter



@Monotremasaurus Rextraordaire @cookiecutter Let's not be silly. Of course he doesn't oppose adoption, and of course some parents are awful and their children should be taken away by social services, and of course sometimes divorce is the best option. His point is that, generally speaking, children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father. That's the social scientific consensus, based on decades of research. If someone cares about child well-being, it's only logical to care about the health of marriage as a social institution.