In The New York Times OpEd “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed,” author David Blankenhorn said he has come to the opinion that “legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.”
Blankenhorn reiterated what he has written in his books: “Children have the right … to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. … Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children. At the level of first principles, gay marriage effaces that gift.”
He said he still believes what he wrote in his books. But “the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over.”
Blankenhorn still holds to a traditional definition of marriage. He believes “gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization.” But he concedes that proponents of same-sex marriage have triumphed, not on the merits of their argument, but on public relations points. If, as surveys predict, a majority of Maine voters will vote yes on Question 1 on Tuesday, credit for this radical shift in opinion is due to a skillfully waged publicity campaign. To achieve this end, it has been necessary to induce a case of cultural amnesia.
Why do states license marriages? Marriage belongs, not to the state, but to a moral and cultural component of society that transcends the state. Many of our laws reflect the values of this moral/cultural tradition. Laws, in turn, can influence society’s values; civil rights legislation achieved that. The argument for same-sex marriage has chiefly been built on a spurious analogy with racial minorities’ struggle for civil rights.
Marriage doesn’t mean only one thing. But existing laws’ “bias” in favor of traditional marriage originates in biological reality, and in a once-prevalent belief that it is good for a child to have a mother and a father. From the late 20th century until now, this concept has been systematically undermined by a number of developments: for example, “no fault” divorce laws; public assistance programs that discourage rearing children in a home with a stable male presence; and the entertainment media’s marketing strategy of glamorizing promiscuity and sexual experimentation. These issues aren’t on the Maine ballot this year.
A 2010 Pew Research Center survey reported that 39 percent of adults think marriage is obsolete. Since 1990, out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. have increased from around 25 percent to more than 40 percent. Children living in single-parent families are (statistically) at risk for being poor, staying poor, dropping out of school and becoming pregnant as teenagers.
Having dispensed with the idea that sexual differentiation and childbearing have anything to do with marriage, the heralds of the “new consciousness” are looking for new territories to conquer. Philosophy professor Elizabeth Brake, author of Minimizing Marriage, asks: Why only two people? Why can’t men marry their sisters? What does sexual intimacy have to do with marriage? Why shouldn’t Oscar and Felix, or any assortment of “caring” apartment-mates or companions, have the legal rights and benefits now enjoyed by married couples?
Reader, I know many same-sex partners are loving, conscientious parents. I recognize the accomplishments of single parents and their children. I haven’t said advocates of same-sex marriage intend to destroy marriage. Perhaps a case can be made for granting same-sex couples many of the proverbial 1,400 rights and benefits now denied them.
But it would be an abuse of government authority — an example of Orwellian Newspeak — to redefine marriage, even by democratic vote, in order to affirm lesbians’ and gay men’s forms of sexual expression. It would be one more assault on children’s right to know and be nurtured by the parents whose physical love produced them.
The Rev. Charles Bradshaw is a pastor living on Mount Desert Island.
Do gay couples adopt children who are being raised by their biological mother and father?
Marriage was redefined when divorce came into being, and a few times before that. I am not sure what ideal world you come from on MDI, but many children I know are the products of broken homes. Some are in foster care, and some don’t even know who their father is. So if two loving and consenting adults want to get married, I don’t think that is “redefining marriage”. If they can provide a loving home for children – even better! Loving gay and lesbian relationships are based on more than “sexual expression” as you put it. And yes I am voting “Yes on One” to affirm marriage – not redefine it.
I do not agree that divorce by its definition redefined marriage.
No fault divorce is made it easier to leave a marriage but marriage was still defined as a union between one man and one woman.
I too think some children suffer with divorce. However I have heard children of divorce now grown say growing up with one parent was much better than the chaos of the existing marriage whether it be violence,adultery,or substance abuse which caused the divorce.
I know single parents doing just fine with parenthood. That may not be all but I have seen many beautiful child/one parent relationships and conversely I have seen disasterous child rearing in two parent “loving” homes.
Do adopted children of gay parents know who their father is and does same sex adoption produce an epiphany where this identity appears?
Was there a point to this comment.
Do adopted children of hetero parents know who there father is? Ridiculous analogy. of course they know who there parents are, the ones who adopted them.
CBS/New York Times Poll which unfortunately is not found on BDN:
“Most Americans favor some type of legal recognition of same-sex relationships, including 38% who support marriage. When asked directly whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not, 42% say it should be, but 51% say it should not. ” However when civil unions are allowed the support for gay marriageto drops 39%. Maine has domestic partnerships which are fundamentally the same as civil unions. Spend time checking out the facts on well respected sites..(not wikipedia which allows edited info). Remember the ads you are being exposed to constantly are a few folks maybe not even Maine residents and most of them have a personal agenda. Enjoy a beautiful day !!!!
Domestic partnerships are fundamentally the same as civil unions? Really? I suppose it would depend on your definition of civil union but what does that matter anyway since civil unions are not the same as marriage. As far as the ads are concerned I think you’ll find as many “not from Maine” people opposed to SSM as there are supportive. The mere fact that a majority of people in the US do not support SSM is meaningless really. Look at the states that are most opposed to SSM, these are the same states that were opposed to integration and equal right for non-whites, so it’s not really surprising they’re opposed to SSM. Same bigotry different class of citizens.
As someone who has had a domestic partnership in the state of Maine for the last 7 years, I can assure you that having one is not like a civil union or marriage at all. Please, Please, do some research before you cite your “facts.” Domestic partnerships exist mainly for to protect people when their partners die intestate.
If those poll numbers were accurate, amiyalouise would have cited her sources.
According to the State of Maine,
“It is important to remember that a registered domestic partnership is
NOT the same as a marriage and does not entitle partners to rights other
than those for which the registry was intended. This registry is
intended to allow individuals to have rights of inheritance as well as
the rights to make decisions regarding disposal of their deceased
partners remains.”
http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/public-health-systems/data-research/vital-records/order/domstcprtnrspge.html
(hopefully this site is “well-respected” enough for you…)
Well, lookee here. And those folks From Away said it was all the same. Who knew?
Marriage has been redefined many times over the years
There is no such thing as a traditional marriage .
Do as search an you will see this .
“…affirming their form of sexual expression.”
There’s a lot more to marriage than sex.
The Rev. Bradshaw is really talking about homophobia. This election is about fears and doubts. “Yes on 1” takes a step toward minimizing homophobia.
Dear Reverend Bradshaw: I am getting so tired of people like you who spout that living with their natural mother and father is what children need. If that be the case, why not put your efforts into stopping divorce? This idealized version of yours of what families should look like hasn’t been relavent since the turn of last century when divorce became more common place. You are over 100 years behind the times here Reverend, not to mention that you are going against your church’s doctrine regarding same sex marriage. Sounds like it is the right move for you to resign from your church. Good luck in your new endeavors.
Seth – just wanted to jump in here and wish you and all the pro-SSM people the best of luck on Tuesday. A strong and compassionate case (as well as a logical one) has been made for passage of SSM.
Someone expressed concern that the issue could be put to the vote again by the naysayers but this would be a fool’s errand. The courts do not like the idea of granting civil rights and then repealing them. The case needs to be extra strong to repeal civil rights once they have been granted. Of course, this happened in Prop-8 but that law has been hanging by a thread and in its death throes. It is unlikely the courts will permits another such fiasco.
The numbers are looking good for WA, MN, and MD, although here in MD, we are getting some pushback from the black preachers – not surprisingly.
I have a letter to Brian Brown (of NOM), in draft, ready to be mailed. It reads:
Dear Mr. Brown:
The People have spoken.
Sincerely yours,
ChuckGG
He then can take his “32 of 32” argument (some votes dating from the 1990’s) and place it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Mr. Brown earns in excess of $260,000 per year from NOM, for shilling against the marriage rights of gay and lesbian Americans. I don’t think he’ll go too quietly into the night, even when same-sex marriage becomes widely legal across the country. For that kind of money, he’ll simply find a new way to keep the issue alive: “we’ve got to overturn these terrible marriage equality laws, for the Lord!”
Oh, I agree. Having lived and worked in DC for the past 32 years, I see it all the time. “There always is money in controversy,” an older consulting friend told me.
There is a special place in Hell for Brian and Maggie, given that they have sold out for 30 pieces of silver. Here is my prediction: SSM will become the law of the land in probably less than 5 years. NOM will wring its hands and fall on the altar. Then, from the ashes will come a new group: The National Organization to Restore Marriage (NORM).
Brian and Maggie will transfer their 401k’s to the new organization, buy some new letterhead, and rally the troops once again. The theme song will be, “Onward Christian Soldiers,” and they will get a raise commensurate with the effort needed for “this new and even more difficult challenge.” They will milk this cow until it is on life support. NORM will then be parked in the same orbit that we today find the KKK and the John Birch Society – there, but a shadow of its former self. Brian and Maggie will become co-chairmen emeritus and collect an annual stipend until the day they die.
The Catholic church, having more sense than all this, (and, frankly a different audience to which to appeal) will park the SSM battle right next to the little known “Legion of Decency” movie review effort. Never admitting defeat, but just allowing it to fade away, is de rigueur of the RCC.
Meanwhile, the American public, with the attention span of a well-bred gnat, will move on to some other strawman, although I admittedly cannot see into my crystal ball to venture a guess as to what it will be. They will find something with which to find fault and some other minority to beat upon.
Actually, Jeffrey, while much of the money that pays Brown comes from defenders of the faith, even that begins to dry up when it becomes obvious that national equal marriage is inevitable. Another variable is the next Pope. The current crop of Knights Templar exist because of the Pope’s pronouncements of 2003. That emphasis could very well change in the next few years.
Strange. I thought conservatives, religious or not, constantly advocate “adoption not abortion”. Why hinder adoption?
They’re afraid they are going to lose…so, they say that the “Yes on 1” group is winning, BUT invalidate them because it was not “on the merits of their argument”.
I disagree with that.
The good reverend misses a number of points. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are not the same as marriage, which in this case is referring to a legal, civil marriage. As I have said many times before, if civil unions/domestic partnerships were the same as civil marriage, they would be recognized by other states, the Federal government, and all other countries. They are not. Therefore, they are not the same.
While SSM is a benefit to SS couples with children, it is a separate issue. There are many SS couples who still wish to marry but do not have, nor wish to have children. Using the children argument for this group does not hold water.
A very important point the reverend misses is that whether or not SSM passes will not in the least affect the number of gays and lesbians in the State. There will be no more, and no less, as a result of the passage, or not, of the law. The same is true in the case of SS couples with children. There will be no more, and no less, gay families in Maine.
The only difference will be whether or not those families and the families that are formed in the future, will have the same civil rights and benefits as the straight family down the street.
The reverend’s assumption that the law will encourage SS families is false. Those families will form and grow regardless of what the State has to say. Whether those families and their children are treated fairly rests on the vote the Reverend and others will cast on Tuesday.
With all due respect to the ‘Reverend’ he is spewing the usual stereotypical vitriol about SSM as all the other ‘enlightened christians’ do.
Traditional marriage is failing because 50% of all marriages end in traditional DIVORCE. SSM has had NOTHING to do with traditional marriage’s failings. SSM is still not allowed in 44 out of the 50 states and frankly if all it takes is 6 whole states and the District of Columbia, which allow SSM, to ‘deconstruct’ traditional marriage…..well then that doesn’t really say a lot about the institution of traditional marriage to begin with now does it? I think not.
Do you know how many states allow cousins to marry one another ? Over 25- Maine included. So it’s ok to marry your cousin (first or otherwise) just so long as you don’t marry your same sex first cousin….THAT makes PERFECT sense.
I know many kids, due to my profession, who are in single family households and 9 times out of 10 it’s due to divorce. I also know many children, again due to my profession, who were in heterosexual households who have been verbally, physically and/or sexually abused by their heterosexual parents who brought them into this world. Any two fools can have sex and produce a child that event alone does not make one qualified or competent to be a parent (I can stand in my garage- that alone does not make me a car.) And just because one may be heterosexual that also does not qualify one to be a competent parent either- look at the foster care stats for this country. Do you know how may children are in foster care in this country because their ‘parents’ could not or would not take care of them? Over 450,000 children- research it the facts are there. I can pretty much assure you that the vast majority of these children in foster care are the products of heterosexual households and yes… *gasp* heterosexuals.
I would rather see children raised in safe, loving, stable and caring home period. I don’t care if that home is a single parent home, a multi-generational home, an opposite parent home, a grandparent home, a kinship home or a same sex parent home- so long as the child is loved, safe and cared for. THAT is what ALL children deserve nothing less. Part of having a stable life is making sure you and your co-parent are protected equally under the laws of this country in order to also insure that your children are protected and many of those ‘protections’ occur when two people decide to marry. 1400+ automatic benefits Reverend- you yourself said so. Remember the astronauts Neil Armstrong and Sally Ride ? Both died this year. Neil was married and when Neil died his wife got his NASA pension, his social security, family assets and the country’s sympathy. Sally Ride was with her same sex partner for over 27 years. Know what Sally’s partner got? Nothing. No NASA pension, no social security, and Sally’s family is legally arguing about any assets Sally had and left to her partner of 27 years in her will. Sound fair? I think not. That is what DOMA has done and that is why DOMA needs to go away.
Another point. You delude yourself Reverend if you think that same sex couples do not have children- of course they do and unlike the ‘accidents’ that many heterosexual couples have when they unexpectedly find out that they are pregnant and unprepared (whoops now how did that happen?)- same sex couples plan ahead and have to intentionally work at having a child- because that child IS wanted and IS planned- there is no accident when a same sex couple adopts a child (yes from a heterosexual couple) or opt to visit a sperm bank.
Are same sex parents or couples with no children perfect? No- they experience the exact same challenges as any other parent or couple would in life, that being said, being a same sex couple should not preclude them from having the same civil rights afforded to any other parents or childless couples who want to get married and are committed to one another and to their family.
A side note. I was raised in a single parent home not by choice, but because my father died when I was 5 and my mother never remarried. Were we poor? Yes. Did we ever get ANY kind of assistance? No. Did I have a child as a teenager ? No. Did I drop out of school? No- just the opposite. Did my hard circumstances make me work that much harder to get ahead? Yes. Four degrees later I am not ‘poor’ and I work hard and I do not judge others. For me it comes down to this -I think we are ALL Americans. As Americans same sex couples deserve to be treated the same under the laws of this country period- by the state AND federal government.
Considering all the kids in single parent homes, and the fact that gay couples already adopt, this whole argument is rubbish.
The author’s point of view makes no sense. If marriage is about children, then why don’t married couples have to have children, or their marriages dissolve after, say, three years of childlessness? Why do we let elderly couples, with no chance to reproduce, get married? Marriage is about the commitment of two people, at its elemental level. That doesn’t change whether there are kids or not. It’s hugely insulting to childless married couples to tell them they’re not really married since they don’t have kids!
One more pastor torturing logic to create a secular argument out of a religious objection.
How does marriage change the number of children being raised by gay couples or how those children are acquired? Nobody has even attempted to answer that very basic question. The purpose of legal marriage is to create a marital estate. Period. The pastor is redefining marriage.
“One more pastor torturing logic to create a secular argument out of a religious objection.”
Very well stated. Thanks.
They have discovered themselves the religious arguments have nothing to do with civil marriage. They now are grabbing at straws and using that passive-aggressive sanctimonious tone so common with people who feel they have God on their side.
Tuesday we can finally silence folks like this by getting out and voting.
So vote.
Get your friends to vote.
Let’s finally put this thing to rest.
Also posted, in part, on one of the Letters postings this weekend (the one headed Clinton…). Couple of cartoons on the Comics page in Monday’s BDN, Non-Sequitur and Dennis the Menace. For you “frugal” web-only readers, the former shows a couple of portly men in contrasting clerical garb about to meet at a street corner each bearing a sign,”Mine is truth! Yours is Myth”. The title: “The End of the Happy Middle Ground”
Stopping same-sex couples from getting married is not going to stop those wishing to become parents from doing so and perhaps the only impact on the children of these relationships is, at best, to leave them with parents who are social outcasts.
The entire premise of this article is false. Voting NO on this proposition won’t do anything to ensure a child is raised by the mother and father that brought them into this world. If that is the main premise, then enacting laws that prevent divorce amongst couples with children, or requiring unwed mothers-to-be to marry the man who got them pregnant would be more effective than NOT allowing gay couples to marry. Certainly not realistic. Gay couples already have children, and this proposition doesn’t address preventing that… The real reason that some people are against gay marriage is becuse they are against gays. They don’t understand it, and their religious bias leads them to conclude it is sinful.
As a pastor myself, I’d prefer the state get out of the “marriage” business altogether. I don’t sign marriage licenses because I’m not working for the state. The problem is that the state has taken over what used to be a religious function, needlessly muddling church/state in the process. The state is supposed to treat all citizens fairly, so telling some couples that they can be married, while denying that right to others, is simply wrong.
Thank you Susan! I agree with the separation of church and state. Marriage may be a religious ceremony, but it also provides financial rights and obligations. These rights and obligations should be controlled by the government, not by any church. Let each church decide for themselves who to recognize as married, but allow all people with a way to get married outside of a religious ceremony. I’m not talking about domestic partnerships, as although they are similar, they’re not the same.
How many years a go did it become a religious function ? If you do a search on the history you will see it was the church that said it should be a religious function .As late as the 10th century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings.