David Blankenhorn is the kind of same-sex marriage opponent you
might consider inviting to your (gay) wedding.
I'm not saying you should. After all, in his books, articles and
talks, Blankenhorn has defended the position that same-sex marriage
weakens a valuable institution. So when your minister intones "If
anyone here has any objections to this union…" all eyes would be on
him.
But Blankenhorn is virtually unique among same-sex marriage
opponents in his insistence on "the equal dignity of homosexual
love." He has stated this belief repeatedly in his talks,
particularly those to conservative audiences. And he stated it
again recently in an online "bloggingheads" discussion with
same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch. Despite his ultimate
opposition, Blankenhorn concedes that there are a number of strong
reasons for supporting same-sex marriage, not least being our equal
worth.
This is an unusual, refreshing, and significant concession.
Before you call me an Uncle Tom-excited about crumbs from the
table rather than demanding my rightful place at it-let me be
clear.
I think Blankenhorn is dead wrong in his opposition to same-sex
marriage. In particular, his argument is marked by some serious
fallacies:
(1) The leap from "Most people who want to dethrone marriage
from its privileged position support same-sex marriage" to "Most
same-sex-marriage supporters want to dethrone marriage from its
privileged position." That's like moving from "Most
professional basketball players are tall" to "Most tall people are
professional basketball players." In fact, most couples who want
same-sex marriage do so precisely because they recognize marriage's
special status.
(2) The leap from "Same-sex-marriage support correlates with
'marriage-weakening behaviors' (non-marital cohabitation,
single-parent childrearing, divorce)" to "Same-sex marriage should
be opposed." Putting aside the questionable claims about
correlation, this argument falsely assumes that only bad things
correlate with bad things. As I've argued
before, that's not so. (Worldwide, affluence correlates with
obesity, but it doesn't follow we should oppose affluence.)
Besides, Blankenhorn overlooks all of the good things that
correlate with same-sex marriage (higher education rates, support
for religious freedom, respect for women, and so on).
(3) The move from "Children do better with their biological
parents than in other kinds of arrangements" to "Same-sex marriage
is bad for children." Blankenhorn's argument here is more
subtle than most. It's not that gay and lesbian couples make bad
parents (indeed, Blankenhorn supports gay adoption); it's that
same-sex marriage reinforces the notion that marriage isn't
primarily about children. And widespread acceptance of that
notion-particularly in the hands of the heterosexual majority, who
do not escape Blankenhorn's critique-is bad for children. This
argument (which deserves more than a cursory treatment) is marked
by a number of dubious empirical assumptions; it also ignores
children who are already being raised by same-sex parents and would
palpably benefit from their parents' legal marriage.
Beyond these concerns, I'm tempted to respond to Blankenhorn's
point about "the equal dignity of homosexual love" with an
exasperated "Duh!" Yes, we love our partners! We rejoice with them
in times of joy; we suffer when they ail; we weep when they die.
The failure to notice this is not just obtuse, it's morally
careless. Thanking someone for acknowledging it feels akin to
thanking the neighbor kids for not peeing on my lawn, or thanking
my students for not sleeping in class-those were never supposed to
be options, anyway.
Ironically, it's largely because of kids that I resist giving
this kind of snarky response. It's all well and good that I think
truths about our lives are obvious. But in the real world-the one
we actually live in-people believe and spread vicious falsehoods
about us. I'm concerned about our kids' hearing them.
Blankenhorn may be mistaken-even badly so-but he isn't vicious.
What's more, he has the ear of audiences who would never listen to
me, much less to the ideological purists who call me an "Uncle
Tom." And he's telling those audiences about the equal dignity of
our love. I'm genuinely grateful for that.
Would I prefer that Blankenhorn preached the equal dignity of
same-sex love without opposing marriage equality? Of course. But I
don't always get what I prefer. And I also realize that, if
Blankenhorn shared all of my preferred views, he wouldn't have the
attention of opponents I want to convert-if not to marriage
equality, then at least to a belief in our equal dignity.
Do I need Blankenhorn's approval for my relationship? Of course
not. But public discourse matters. Ideas matter; votes matter. They
matter to us, and they matter to those who come after us.
When Blankenhorn tells our opponents about "the equal dignity of
homosexual love," he's talking to people with kids. Some of those
kids will be gay. For their sake, I'm critical of him. For their
sake, I'm also grateful to him.