David Blankenhorn | Gay Marriage | News | North Carolina | Proposition 8

Prop 8 Proponent and Witness David Blankenhorn Comes Out Against North Carolina's 'Amendment One'

This is huge.

David Blankenhorn, Proposition 8 proponents key witness and director of the Institute for American Values, and Elizabeth Marquardt, the director of the Center for Marriage and Families at the same organiation, have come out against North Carolina's Amendment One, which would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions in the state.

They still oppose legalizing same-sex marriage, but...

BlankenhornThey write, in the News Observer:

The proposed amendment states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” That’s a big mouthful, and it goes well beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.

For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.

That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

If you want to create a backlash against mother-father marriage – if you want to convince people that the real agenda of marriage advocates is not protecting marriage, but ignoring and ostracizing gay people – then this amendment might be to your liking. But we believe that the cause of marriage is hurt, not helped, by gratuitously linking it to the cause of never under any circumstances helping gay and lesbian couples.

Nc4More from the shocking editorial:

Do we suggest that North Carolina must rush out and pass civil unions? That’s not our argument. Our argument is that you should not amend your constitution in order to ban even the future consideration of this, or any other, idea for aiding gay and lesbian couples and their families.

We are convinced that these two ideas – marriage as society’s most pro-child institution that seeks to bond mothers and fathers to their children, and humane recognition for same-sex couples – stand best when they stand together. If you wonder why the push for gay marriage is so rapidly gaining ground across our nation, especially among young people, we don’t think you need to look much further than this tragic social dynamic, in which support for mother-father marriage appears to many to have merged with either overt antagonism or cold indifference regarding the actual lives and needs of gay and lesbian couples and their children.

Read the whole piece:

Amendment goes too far [news observer]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. One of the ongoing frustrations for me is that so many of the people who oppose marriage equality seem to have been willfully ignoring exactly this point - the antigay forces are ANTI GAY - there has never been the slightest intention of protecting anyone's marriage from anything.

    We've seen that from day one, that this was simply another cynical fear-based plan to claim that we are attacking something they love, whether it is marriage, democracy, or their kids.

    If this is a sign that some of the more moderate opponents are beginning to wake up and realize that this really is about putting gay people down by whatever means necessary rather than about any of the claimed motivations by these groups, that's a huge step forward.

    It won't change my conviction that nothing short of actual equality is an acceptable end goal, but if the opposition can shatter and leave the virulently anti-gay people behind, then we may actually have a chance to start to have the real dialogue that might change minds.

    Calls from the right not to close and lock the doors on civil unions are a fantastic early step in convincing them that we aren't coming after their marriages in the first place. Fully equal federal civil unions would be a tolerable stepping stone toward full equality, if it came to that.

    Posted by: Lymis | Apr 11, 2012 8:52:09 AM


  2. Not buying his line of BS. He helped release the genie of hate out of the bottle, and now it's gotten too much for even him to stomach. Actions have consequences, and we will paying for the bile which has been spewed against gay people for years to come. It's a bit late to try and assuage his conscience at this point and play the pious saint.

    Posted by: milpert | Apr 11, 2012 9:13:10 AM


  3. @ LYMIS:

    I fully agree; nothing short of absolute equality.

    And I even more agree that this anti same sex marriage is just a smoke screen for hatred and bigotry. They never believed that our marriages undermined theirs.......they could not name one "undermined marriage"........but these people are virulently anti-gay, simpliciter.

    Just as there have always been hate groups and there are still other hate groups, Ayrean nation etc;but the NOM is just another one of them ( perhaps better dressed ).

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Apr 11, 2012 9:32:19 AM


  4. @MILPERT

    The genie is definitely out of the bottle. He's living in a fool's paradise if he thinks that Prop 8 wasn't about being anti-gay. I live in California now, and during that election, there were nonstop TV ads about how we were coming for children, etc. The tactics were hate and misinformation-based, just like the ones in NC.

    Posted by: Adam Sass | Apr 11, 2012 9:39:22 AM


  5. Blankenhorn and Marquardt are still douchebags. I suspect that this has more to do with foundations and other organizations refusing to work with their Institute for American Values. See the informative article at glbtq.com from a couple of years ago: "Confessions of a Blog Addict. Or Why I Love to Hate Religion.org and FamilyScholars.org," especially the section on "The Sad Case of David Blankenhorn." The article also contains hilariously stupid comments made by Elizabeth Marquardt. Here's the url is http://www.glbtq.com/sfeatures/confessionsofablogaddict.html.

    In any case, I suppose we should welcome their opposition to the North Carolina referendum, but we need to remember that they are doing this just to cover their own rears. They have concluded, rightly, that they bet on the wrong horse when they got involved in their crusade against same-sex marriage. Blankenhorn got exposed as the bigot that he is.

    Posted by: Jay | Apr 11, 2012 9:50:16 AM


  6. The comments are so hateful and ignorant, it is almost as though this amendment to the state constitution were being held in South Carolina.

    Goodness.

    Personally, I don't think either of the authors has had a sudden change of heart. They still hate us with all their christian, um, er, 'family values driven' passion.

    They are smart enough, however, to see that this level of animus will not pass muster in front of the Supreme Court. Not even this Supreme Court. It's even worse than Romer vs. Colorado.

    Sadly, the comments just prove their own worst fears - the haters are beyond reach.

    Posted by: enough already | Apr 11, 2012 10:10:40 AM


  7. is the message on this one that even crazy people think NC's amendment 1 goes too far? I guess that's a good thing, but I'll never be pumped for anything this guy does; I simply don't care. the only good things about him is he was a disaster of a witness at the prop 8 trial and made for a hilarious character at Dustin Lance Black's play 8 in LA.

    Posted by: R | Apr 11, 2012 10:13:37 AM


  8. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "mother-father marriage" be marriage AFTER the child is born? That's a no-no, right? Well, technically and, of course, traditionally...

    Posted by: BobN | Apr 11, 2012 1:50:01 PM


  9. While it may be huge for NC, and whoever Elizabeth Marquardt is, I'm not surprised that David Blankenhorn would say this.

    He is a bigot, but of the Obama variety. He does support LGB people as couples and parents. He just thinks opposite-sex couples do it better, and that the law should therefore discriminate in that way.

    He is the guy who said the US would be "more American" the day same-sex marriage was legalized.

    Posted by: Randy | Apr 11, 2012 3:16:34 PM


  10. @ LYMIS et al:
    THIS IS ONLY DAMAGE CONTROL, trying to get middle ground people to stay in their fold.
    I do not trust a word of it, but it may have good effect re this hateful amendment.

    Posted by: Bob | Apr 11, 2012 3:34:55 PM


  11. Anyways folks, so what do you say??

    Posted by: 2GirlsTeachSex | Jun 19, 2012 4:04:03 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «NOM Admits Stifling Free Speech, Apologizes, 'Vows to Turn Things Around for the Better'« «