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.
Quite sad. I tend to agree with Marvin Olaskey at his WORLD magazine blog site. Christians and heterosexuals allowed marriage's status to get downgraded. No fault divorce and unlimited abortion (and the premarital sex often responsible for it) were all predicted by Humana Vitae. Marriage exists not to make us happy but to make us holy and help us honor the Lord.
Re Blankenhorn....whimpy comes to mind. I was saddened by his inertia, lack of depth of understanding not only what's at stake (I think he does), but caving to the pressure. I suspect many don't find JP2's Theology of the Body very compelling, but I think it holds the key to why SSM is a misnomer. Further, my background lacks the sophist-ication to argue against his reasoning. I hope you can reach him. I thought he was a good ally.
What a shame. Blankenhorn was in the forefront of those concened about the Fatherless family problem in America at least partially created by same-sex relationships that by their very nature leave fathers out of the family. Just when studies are confirming our intuition and experience that fatherless families lack what is so importantly needed by boys and girls to grow up with a balanced understanding of the roles of the two sexes. The increase in delinquency, lower grades, drinking and drug abuse, especially by boys in faherless families, cannot be shrugged off as just collateral damage in the way of the sexual fulfillment of same-sex partners. The lack of a father in a relationship between children and adults is a negatively defining characteristic of many American families where the choice is made to leave a father out of the family. Without a father there is no family in the best sense of families. Of course one can always argue from the margins that in exceptional cases there can be no father but Blankenhorn was always talking about the choice to be fatherless, not fatherless families by default. Blankenhorn was vilified by the same people who he now caves into for saying the things that are now being borne out by irrefutable studies that objectively find that fatherless families do not provide what kids most need which is a loving mother and faher to care for, love and nourish them for as long as it takes for them to be independent.