Don't miss IGF contributor Dale Carpenter's critique of David Blankenhorn, over at the indispensable Volokh.com. Says Dale:
Blankenhorn's book is unusually well-written. And intellectual guilt-by-association has an easy appeal that may make his argument that these bad things all "go together" an anti-gay marriage mantra in the future. Like [Stanley] Kurtz's superficially frightening correlations, now largely ignored on both sides of the debate, Blankenhorn's argument has to be carefully unpacked to show how unsatisfying it is.
Dale's unpacking is masterly. And Blankenhorn's book, which I just finished, is the best piece of work that the anti-gay-marriage side has yet produced, containing much to admire despite its flaws. If nothing else, the Dale-David exchange shows how far the gay-marriage debate has come since the hysteria of only a few years ago.
6 Comments for “Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn.”
posted by MeToo on
the best piece of work that the anti-gay-marriage side has yet produced,
———–
Jon, care to make a short list of what exactly is so impressive and “new” in this horn-blower book, for those unlikely to take time for it? I can’t even get a table of contents listing from Amazon.
posted by Ramza on
I haven’t read the book, but it appears much of Blankenhorn’s arguments can be located in the Carpenter link provided. Inside it you will find Carpenter first responding to the book, Blankehorn’s Weekly Standard piece, Carpenter’s response to that, followed by Blankehorn respond to Carpenter, and so on. There are also some miscellaneous links Carpenter links to responding to people posting about Carpetner and Blankehorn’s discussion
posted by MeToo on
I’ve read those and I’ve read Blankenhorn’s response.
If all that Blakenhorn has put up in his book is some obviously flawed and weak analysis of “trends”, it’s not worth the praise it gets from Jon or Dale.
I could make a stronger “traditionalist” argument without relying on that.
What would be interesting is on what basis Blankenhorn says this, “Further, I argue at some length in my book that these people [the de-institutionalization ‘lefties’] are right.”
posted by F. Rottles on
“Dale’s unpacking is masterly.”
That unpacking begins with a series of misrepresentations that ought to embarrass Dale Carpenter.
And it ought to embarrass the pro-SSM advocates who have let it slide by.
Here is what Dale Carpenter said, mistakenly:
>> “[Blankenhorn] […]eschews the argument made by Stanley Kurtz […] Maggie Gallagher, too, has avoided relying on Kurtz. Robert George of Princeton has seemed agnostic about Kurtz’s claims. Now Blankenhorn rejects the Kurtz thesis. It is becoming difficult to find even opponents of same-sex marriage who think Kurtz is right.”
1. Blankenhorn embraces Kurtz’s argument, he did not say he rejected it.
>> “The main point of my Weekly Standard article is to lay out new empirical evidence showing that, around the world, support for gay marriage is strongest where support for customary marriage is weakest. So obviously my argument does not rebut Kurtz at all; instead, it augments, seeks to clarify, and builds on what Kurtz has been arguing all along.”
2. Gallagher has not avoided relying on Kurtz as she has said, that
>> “Dale [Carpenter] is basically insisting that the only kind of evidence he would acknowledge is scientific proof of unilateral causality. David [Blankenhorn] is arguing (Or perhaps I should say I am arguing) rather differently …”
In 2004, Gallagher said this:
“To me, the most persuasive part of Stanley Kurtz’s argument is this: If you go around telling people that marriage has nothing in particular to do with making and raising children, people
just might believe you.”
In 2006 Gallgher said:
“Jon [Rauch], my argument and Stanley’s are not necessarily the same, although close enough that your connecting them is natural.”
She went on to explain: “Stanley could well be right that the successful campaign for gay marriage helped destabilize marriage in the Netherlands; it’s more plausible to me than his critics have acknowledged, if the mechanism is […] the cultural campaign that made the legal change possible. But such a thing, of its nature, would be a judgment call, not a statistical proof. Nor do I agree that the methods of many of his critics are definitive.”
3. In 2006, Robert George did not indicate was “agnostic” when he said this:
>> “Rauch?s fourth point is a claim that legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages would actually serve as an impediment to the deinstitutionalization of marriage favored by those who signed ?Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.? This is, I believe, the reverse of the truth, but it is an empirical prediction and I am content to let Stanley Kurtz and other sociologists who dispute it present the data grounding their doubts. I will point out, however, a particularly dubious move Rauch makes in connection with this claim. …”
Robert George makes a principled argument against merger SSM with marriage recognition. He believes it would probably not obstruct the very deinstitutionalization that Kurtz, Gallagher, and Blankenhorn have been pointing out. But he says he will leave the empirical debate to others.
Now, Jon Rauch, as an informed SSM advocate, could you please clarify your opinion of Dale Carpenter’s description of the supposedly conflicting views of these other people — incuding David Blankenhorn, Stanley Kurtz, Maggie Gallagher, and Robert George?
Did Carpenter get it right or did he mischaracterize, exagerate, or simply pressed his wishful thinking into the words of others? Maybe something else comes to mind, I dunno.
posted by MeToo on
F. Rottles,
You are lucky that you have kind guys like Jon and Dale, who may consider your points kindly. Other people, like myself, find most of this empiricism to be specious, whether it is in the mouths of Kurtz, Blankenhorn, Gallagher, or George. It masks weak arguments and only leads to fallacies, like guilt-by-association, a/k/a propaganda.
posted by F. Rottles on
MeToo, do you say the same about the empiricism that Jon Rauch, Dale Carpenter, and Andrew Sullivan would put forth, as well?
On principle, it is the pro SSM argument which stakes its case on false equivalencies of its own making.
The question here is whether or not Jon Rauch agrees with Dale Carpenter’s characterization of the views David Blankenhorn, Maggie Gallagher, and Robert P. George — in regards to Carpenter’s attempt to recruit these people against the argument of Stanley Kurtz.