Former foe of gay marriage in California now favors unions

Reuters ^ | June 23, 2012

[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."

[feralcat]

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.

[nathanbedford]

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.

[noinfringers3]

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.

[ardara]

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

[heye2monn]

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

It is truly a bottomless pit.