David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a private think tank, took the witness stand for the defense in the trial challenging California's [marriage amendment].If marriage means whatever a behavioral minority wants to mean, than it really doesn’t mean anything at all. Things that are considered meaningless aren't valued."My best judgment, if we move toward a widespread adoption of same-sex marriage, I believe the effect will be to significantly further and in some respects culminate the process of deinstitutionalization of marriage," Blankenhorn said.
Blankenhorn acknowledged that heterosexuals were responsible for the decline of marriage but said allowing gays to marry would accelerate the trend and possibly lead to the legalization of polygamy.It is not a matter of "allowing gays to marry" - 1) same-sex couples can and do have ceremonies and claim a social marital status, and anyone else is free to recognize those couples as "married" if they choose and 2) people who claim a homosexual orientation can and have entered into state-licensed marriages under the bride+groom requirement, as testified to during this very trial.
What the plaintiffs seek to do is use a federal court overturn an amendment in the state constitution that was adopted by a popular vote so that the core of the meaning of marriage, the uniting of a bride and groom, is removed as a requirement for state licensing.
Also, I want to plug my namesake blog, where I've posted an entry addressing people who cite the Bible when defending marriage in secular forums.
UPDATE: Here 's Alexandria Sage's coverage from today for Reuters. Glancing over it, it appears to be much less biased than the AP coverage, but then I haven't noticed Reuters following the trial nearly as closely as the AP.
UPDATE 2: And here's Maura Dolan's coverage for LATimes.com. They are taking comments, as always.
Multiple posts over at the LA times piece have dismissed Blakenhorn - as you would suspect they would.
ReplyDeleteThey simply do not care about the institution itself, its health and our ability to maintain the social goods that flow through it.
This is a studied ignorance - that is a willfull desire to maintain a misunderstanding/no understanding of your advesaries arguments.
Marriage neuterers need to maintaine this ignorance and give their advesaries NO intleectual or moral respect what-so-ever!
Only through this stridency can they maintain their revolution.
Fitz: They simply do not care about the institution itself, its health and our ability to maintain the social goods that flow through it.
ReplyDeleteMuch as slave owners ignored the humanity of those they enslaved. This allowed them to ignore the harm they were doing to other humans and instead focus on the benefits they received from owning slaves.