Former Prop 8 star witness David Blankenhorn announced today that his views on marriage equality have changed, and that he is no longer an opponent of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Maggie Gallagher weeps nostalgic:
My friend and mentor and one-time boss David Blankenhorn has just published a New York Times op-ed in which he gives up on opposing gay marriage. I haven’t yet read it carefully enough to respond, except to say that “the argument from despair” is the single most powerful argument gay-marriage advocates wield. I wish you well, old friend.
Oh, the poor thing. Maggie: everyone will one day leave this cause, and you, behind, unless you go with them, out of bigotry and into the light. One of the interesting things in Blankenhorn’s op-ed is that he admits that the anti-gay marriage side is motivated, in large part, by simple animus. That’s true, but it’s damning for those left in Maggie’s position.
would someone explain “argument from despair”
The scent of equality is in the air.
Anything more surfaced about Maggie’s marriage not being intact anymore? Seems like clues were surfacing in that direction.
Mags can read?
I love the smell of schadenfreude in the evening.
Let’s hear that again (from the article):
“In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.”
Underlying anti-gay animus. I think he gets it.
@ Buffy — LOL actually Schadenfreude would be a cool name for a cologne or perfume.
Qwerty wrote: “Underlying anti-gay animus. I think he gets it.”
No, I don’t think he does. His position is a toned-down “love the sinner, hate the sin” – and while he no longer opposes our civil rights, he still sees us as less-than.
She didn’t read it carefully enough to respond to it, but she still concludes that Blankehorn was duped by “the argument from despair”, whatever the hell that is.
Quite an interesting companion piece to Blankenhorn’s NYT op/ed, published the same day, offers even better insight — if not into Blank’s, uh, “evolution,” then into how such a self-proclaimed “liberal intellectual” developed such idiotic ideas about marriage equality in the first place.
I think Mister College Do-Gooder conflated his early observations of fatherless homes in poor, crime-ridden cities with ALL families — never taking circumstances into account, but foolishly and recklessly concluding that all non-bio-male-female families lead to the downfall of civilization.
I also think Blank still labors under this delusion, having never examined the real origins of his resistance to marriage equality. It’s telling that he insists on maintaining that marriage is first and foremost about procreation, yet has adjusted his opinion wrt marriage based on current trends. He practically screams, “I don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history!”
Of course, I am not a shrink; this is just my takeaway.
In any case, it’s a very interesting read:
http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/content/wnpr/david-blankenhorn-and-battle-over-same-sex-marriage
Of course, I am happy that Blankenhorn has evolved to some extent. But we should not forget the harm that he has done to the cause of equal rights. Nor should we give him the benefit of doubt as to why he has evolved. At heart, Blankenhorn is an opportunist. He has decided that it is in his interest not to be seen as a soldier in what increasingly looks like a lost cause. The one thing that we know about him as a result of his labors in the vineyard of anti-gay activism is that he is NOT an expert on marriage. That was an official determination by a federal court. So I am dismayed by the reports that call him a nationally recognized expert on marriage.