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 ...
"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.
I am amazed how many people have evolved this year.
(((((((massive eye roll))))))
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.
“...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?
I’ll wager that Dave’s suddenly found a ten year old lad that....well,I won’t go there.
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.
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’.
Sounds like they got to him.
Blackmail, probably.
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.
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
Dave Blakenhorn, master of the compromised position.
I don't think so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NEVER!
“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...”
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!
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.