Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former foe of gay marriage in California now favors unions
Reuters ^ | June 23, 2012

Posted on 06/23/2012 7:09:56 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

(Reuters) - A key witness for lawyers seeking to defend California's ban on same-sex marriage in federal court in 2010 has changed his view on the subject, and pronounced his support for giving gay unions social recognition.

David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values think tank, wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times he now believes the time for "denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over."

"Whatever one's definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness," Blankenhorn wrote in a piece published on Friday.

In 2010, Blankenhorn was the final witness called to defend California's ban on gay marriage, which was passed by voters in the state in 2008 in a ballot measure called Proposition 8. Six states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriage.

Blankenhorn began his testimony by asserting that the best environment for children is to live in a house led by a man and a woman.

But in a surprise to observers of the trial, Blankenhorn seemed to concede certain points to gay marriage advocates under persistent cross-examination from veteran litigator David Boies, who helped launch the legal challenge to Proposition 8.

Blankenhorn said on the witness stand he believed "adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda

1 posted on 06/23/2012 7:10:00 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
What about 3 guys and 4 gals...Hey it is only fair!

"Whatever one's definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness," Blankenhorn wrote in a piece published on Friday.

2 posted on 06/23/2012 7:13:46 PM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I am amazed how many people have evolved this year.
(((((((massive eye roll))))))


3 posted on 06/23/2012 7:18:50 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

There was a lot of money spread around the NY state senate prior to passing of the gay marriage bill. Changed a few votes. Just wondering.


4 posted on 06/23/2012 7:22:57 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

“...gay and lesbian couples and their children...”

They can’t produce natural children and they should not be able to adopt/buy children. Do you hear that Mitt?


5 posted on 06/23/2012 7:23:38 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I’ll wager that Dave’s suddenly found a ten year old lad that....well,I won’t go there.


6 posted on 06/23/2012 7:24:38 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Bill Ayers Was *Not* "Just Some Guy In The Neighborhood")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

Some of us would rather drive on the sidewalks. It would only be fair to let us.....

The marriage institution was not created by the state or by the church or by God as an act for fairness, or as an act of kindness or niceness or benevolence to the couple. The institution was created and narrowly defined by both God and the state to do things in the interest of God and the state.

Any two or ten homosexuals can rightly and legally contract amongst themselves, doing ALL the things marriage does EXCEPT obligate third parties to be a party to the contract. Because a real marriage extends the contract to third parties, it therefore has been narrowly defined.

Extending marriage to homosexual or bigamist or underage partnerships was never in the interest of either the secular state or to God. Extending it a matter of “fairness” would be harmful to the state’s interest. God will deal with it in his own terms.


7 posted on 06/23/2012 7:24:53 PM PDT by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Fairness newspeak, blah blah.
Is it fair that the moon can never become the sun? Is it fair that the cat can never become the dog? Two people of the same gender can never become married. What’s fairness got to do with an absolute fact? Nature and the laws of science are not based on the concept of ‘fairness’.


8 posted on 06/23/2012 7:27:06 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Sounds like they got to him.

Blackmail, probably.


9 posted on 06/23/2012 7:27:06 PM PDT by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
I am not anti-gay, nor homophobic, in fact, I have "many gay friends" and some family members. It is possible to LOVE gays, and still be opposed to the idea of allowing gays to "marry" using the current means.

If they want to petition for the "rights" that they think they are lacking, let them do so. But the truth is, this isn't about getting their "rights", its about thumbing their noses at social conservatives, and normalizing their behavior.

10 posted on 06/23/2012 7:29:01 PM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Can I marry my 21 year old son? Wouldn’t this be fair?

Can I marry my 23 year old son and 21 year old daughter along with my 50 year old wife? Wouldn’t this be fair?

Can 27 persons form a corporate marriage? And pass children around? And share insurance benefits? Hospital visitation rights? Property rights of spouses? Wouldn’t this be fair?

I’m kinda surprised we haven’t seen this yet. A challenge on equal protection grounds for a multi-party marriage in those states where courts have used equal protection reasoning to justify homosexual marriage.

How long will it be


11 posted on 06/23/2012 7:29:48 PM PDT by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Dave Blakenhorn, master of the compromised position.


12 posted on 06/23/2012 7:30:08 PM PDT by Third Person ( Actions reflect priorities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Did homosexuality suddenly become less vile?

I don't think so.

13 posted on 06/23/2012 7:38:37 PM PDT by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Somebody got to him. There is nothing new about the gay marriage argument. Suddenly he believes that its all about being “fair.” Well that argument was an obvious one when he championed prop 8. It may be that someone threatened to release the skeletons in his closet.


14 posted on 06/23/2012 7:57:05 PM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

He’s a fool. Maybe he’s such a fool that he thinks, well, if having one father is good for children, then having two “fathers” would be even better, even if the “fathers” expose the children to sexual activity from infancy.

Maybe he’s just a misogynist, and we misunderstood and thought he cared about children’s well-being.


15 posted on 06/23/2012 7:58:11 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Spinach at every meal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Wonder who made or promised to make sizable donations to Institute for American Values?

This guys needs to make a living.

Now the gays have a “former conservative opponent” ready and willing to defend their policies.

Fundraising at its best.


16 posted on 06/23/2012 8:08:57 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garjog

Or he (wasn’t a real supporter of traditional marriage), and Satan “devoured him” like a hungry lion.. His throughts and mind may be perverted, who knows?

Let’s just hope that God changes his mind back.


17 posted on 06/23/2012 8:21:53 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; windcliff; stylecouncilor

NEVER!


18 posted on 06/23/2012 8:39:00 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

“Winston Smith: It’s not so much staying alive, it’s staying human that’s important. What counts is that we don’t betray each other...”


19 posted on 06/23/2012 8:46:06 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

In Blankenhorn’s article in the New York Times, he says he hopes once same-sex marriage is law that many who support it will work to strengthen marriage by opposing cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births.

Watch the gay pride parades this weekend and tell me how many of them seem likely to oppose cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births!


20 posted on 06/23/2012 9:05:45 PM PDT by feralcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

He was probably tired of becoming a hate figure for the Left. Supporters of same-sex marriage are vicious and spew venom on anyone who dares to stand up for traditional marriage. (Ironic that they love to accuse anyone who opposes SSM of “hate.”)

I think in the end Blankenhorn just found it too hard to put up with that kind of constant obloquy.


21 posted on 06/23/2012 9:10:49 PM PDT by feralcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Who is David Blankenhorn and who cares what he thinks?

My question is not rhetorical, but directed specifically at the trial court. It goes to the root of the whole proceeding. How is it that a state statute and especially a referendum is subject to review on this matter by a federal court?

Because the court has assumed unto itself the power to determine what the 14th amendment means, what from the Bill of Rights and elsewhere (permutations and emanations) will be incorporated into the 14th amendment. The court has said, we will pick and choose those rights which we think are important enough to be protected by the 14th amendment and exclude those we don't think important.

That is why there is such a grave risk that the court will declare Obama care constitutional-because as a general way of thinking the court has virtually placed off-limits issues concerning economic rights. But here the court is flexing its muscles in areas in which it believes it has the power and the moral right to overturn federal statutes, state legislatures, and the expressed will of the people of the state of California.

The court is saying that it is be constitutionally authorized entity to decide whether the 14th amendment covers the subject and the people who voted on the issue, and their state representatives, are not.

Once the court embarks on this course it has perforce arrogated unto itself massive power over our lives. But the institution of the court is predicated on the proposition that it does not act arbitrarily, but only according to some universal set of principles. Principles that presumably are directly rooted in the Constitution itself.

How was the court operating in this instance? It says in effect, "bring on the opinions of experts so that we can choose the one we like." In this instance the lawyers litigating in defense of marriage evidently miscalculated, but that is really not the point. The point is that someone who forms some Institute and got his opinion printed in The New York Times should for some reason be heard to opine about the validity of the People's choice.

So the court is expected to form its opinion based on the opinions of another man whose credentials are at least dubious and who, by his own admission, shapes his opinion by placing a wetted finger in the wind:

But Blankenhorn went on to argue that he has changed his view due in part to the public's coming to believe gay marriage is about accepting gays and lesbians "as equal citizens."

His judgment of the weight of public opinion apparently comes from samplings of polls, rather than results at the polling booth.

To judge how absurd this whole proceeding has become, consider if the esteemed Mr. Blankenhorn had opined to the federal judges that his blacks were inferior to whites and therefore marriage between the races should be constitutionally prohibited.

'nuff said.


22 posted on 06/23/2012 11:36:03 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

The game is all about carving out meaning of words to gain a public advantage. There is no better example than the appropriation of the word ‘gay’. If you hear someone not a homosexual describing a personal feeling as’gay’ the homos have automatically gained a supporter as far as thev public knows.


23 posted on 06/24/2012 2:00:29 AM PDT by noinfringers3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I doubt if 1 out of 500 people ever heard of David Blankenhorn.


24 posted on 06/24/2012 4:47:01 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Good questions! Government recognition of gay marriage opens the doors to many other things, both ridiculous and appalling.

It is truly a bottomless pit.


25 posted on 06/24/2012 5:01:34 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson