[Note: On Wednesday, February 27 at 11:00 a.m., FRC will be welcoming David Blankenhorn for a lecture on his book, The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books, 2007). The lecture will also be available via live webcast at www.frc.org.]
In 1995, David Blankenhorn made one of the most important contributions to the debates over family structure with his book Fatherless America. In it, he compiled the overwhelming social science evidence in support of the common-sense truth that children need fathers as well as mothers.
Now, after years as what he calls a “Morally Anguished Fence Sitter” on the issue of so-called same-sex “marriage,” Blankenhorn has finally followed his earlier findings to their logical conclusion by declaring that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. His new book, The Future of Marriage, lays out in a thorough, scholarly, yet accessible way exactly why marriage exists as a social institution, why the male-female union is intrinsic to it, and how redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would damage it.
Blankenhorn takes the reader on a fascinating tour across time and cultures, noting that “the origins of marriage appear to coincide with the origins of civilization.” Blankenhorn describes how in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, older cultures which practiced temple prostitution and sex for its own sake came to be replaced by ones (like that of the Hebrews) that recognized marriage and the social importance of fatherhood.
In contrast to such patriarchal societies are ones like the Trobriand Islands in the Pacific, which emphasize a child’s descent through her mother’s line. Yet even here, marriage and fathers are considered crucial for the raising of children. These two illustrations—as well as quotes from numerous anthropologists—prove that marriage has some features that are virtually universal, and that bridging the male-female divide is one such feature.
Another such feature is that marriage is about sex and procreation. To argue that “marriage is not intrinsically connected to bearing and raising children” as advocates of same-sex “marriage” routinely do, is like saying “cars are not intrinsically connected to driving” because those who purchase them are not required to drive them.
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” love to ask, “What harm could it possibly do?” Blankenhorn carefully answers this question by spelling out the dangers of “deinstitutionalizing” marriage. Marriage is a “social institution,” defined as “a relatively stable pattern of rules and structures intended to meet basic social needs.” But if the “rules” are intentionally violated and the “structures” are torn down, then the “institution” will cease to fulfill its social purpose—which, in the case of marriage, is to provide every child with both a mother and a father who are committed to him or her, and to each other.
Some homosexual activists, such as Jonathan Rauch, argue that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage would actually strengthen the institution. Blankenhorn thoroughly refutes that notion—in part by pointing out that many of the scholars who are most hostile to the institution of marriage are also the most enthusiastic about legalizing same-sex “marriage.” One, Judith Stacey, is described as “a determined cheerleader for divorce, unwed childbearing, and cohabitation”—and for same-sex “marriage.”
In addition to citing individual scholars, Blankenhorn also examines polling data from a number of countries to find out how attitudes toward marriage correlate with legal recognition of same-sex unions. Blankenhorn found that countries with same-sex “marriage” also have the weakest support for marriage as an institution.
Blankenhorn takes on the superficial analogy between banning same-sex “marriage” and banning interracial marriage, arguing that is actually the advocates of same-sex “marriage,” not the opponents, who resemble the advocates of racist anti-miscegenation laws. Both, he says, seek “to recreate marriage in the name of a social goal that is fundamentally unconnected to marriage.”
Although he sees adult freedom and child well-being as being “goods in conflict” in this debate, Blankenhorn concludes, “For me, sustaining the right of the child to her two natural parents is ultimately more important than granting adults more freedom of choice.” This is the core message of his book.
The Future of Marriage is carefully reasoned and thoroughly documented, but Blankenhorn is not above revealing his exasperation with the advocates of same-sex “marriage” and their public talking points, various of which he describes as “nonsense,” “intellectually vacuous,” and “clearly preposterous.”
However, Blankenhorn is not a social conservative. “I count myself as a liberal,” he declares. While clearly opposing the redefinition of marriage, Blankenhorn is entirely silent about the political debate over laws or constitutional amendments to protect marriage at the state or federal levels. He also says nothing about marriage counterfeits such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. Social conservatives will gag on several things he says, including his declaration, “We as a society can and should accept the dignity of homosexual love.”
His acceptance not only of homosexual behavior, but also of premarital sex, appears to be the one logical gap in Blankenhorn’s argument. For him, the link between marriage and children is clearly a two-way street—the purpose and definition of marriage has everything to do with children, and children do best when raised by their married biological mother and father. Blankenhorn also affirms that marriage has everything to do with sexual union—but travels only one way on that street, by failing to recognize that sex itself is best confined to the marriage of a man and a woman. Perhaps after another twelve years and in another book, he will come around on that issue as he has on same-sex “marriage.”
Blankenhorn’s lingering liberalism actually underlines the importance of his book. With the publication of The Future of Marriage, no one should ever again get away with charging that opposition to same-sex “marriage” is rooted in ignorance, religion, or “anti-gay bigotry.” For that, we owe David Blankenhorn a major debt of gratitude.
Peter Sprigg is vice president for policy at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., and the author of Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage.
Comments (7)
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
February 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Comment Permalink
It is very sad that even like most Christian groups FRC, though not officially "Christian" nevertheless unwittingly continues to promote the fascist lies and propaganda homoerotic agenda by embracing the bogus terminology of the lie and fraud "homosex-" that not only never was and never will be, but is inherently oxymoronic (exposed by "The 'gay' invention" at
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f),
tragically unwittingly perpetuating a fraud the way it also does with its support of the evolution fraud disguised as "intelligent design" (ID) that is still ultimately just as rejecting of Biblical truth and authority as evolution itself seen in its frequently attacks of Biblical (i.e. "young earth") creation (YEC) and its adherents to curry favor with the world and its elites that ironically still despises them, both evolution and ID equally exposed both scientifically and especially Biblically as bogus frauds (especially the absurd and easily refuted irrational and bogus billions of years chronology delusion of the ignorant, stupid and incompetent (including if not especially PhDs) at www.answersinGeneis.org , YEC being irrefutably the unanimously held view of all Israel and the Church for most of nineteen centuries until the age of the Church's Darwinian adulterous captivity still in progress, despite the lies and spin of various "christian" scholars, as seen in the woeful state of most of today's ineffective Biblically illiterate Christian groups that have no sure Word of God to proclaim, just the disgusting fatuous compromise of warmed over antitheist evolution rehash. Contrary to popular stupid and ignorant opinions that rule the Church today, it is manifestly no arguable matter like modes of baptism, but of either choosing God's truth or man's error and falsehood since no one but YEC can make a reasonable case for their position, the reason why no one will debate them any more despite vain excuses that merely expose their incompetence, though of course finally it's in no way a matter of man's wisdom but God's condescending revelation as is very plain in
Matt 11:25/Luke 10:21 … Jesus … said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. and Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. and 13:1 There is no power but of God.
February 22, 2008 9:52 PM | Comment Permalink
Challotte: But you dont understand... if we let gays marry, then the children will be harmed! Think of the children! If you support gay marriage you want to harm children!
February 24, 2008 7:01 PM | Comment Permalink
I have been a Christian for 28 of my 53 years and I am a proud lesbian. I have adopted 1 child, my partner has adopted 3. Our state does not allow us to jointly adopt the children. Guess what -- they have no legal father -- wouldn't it be nice if they had two legal parents? Wouldn't it be nice if they had the same legal protections that a heterosexual family would offer them.
We're no threat to heterosexual families, we're simply trying to live our lives in the way we know best. We love our kids and want them to know and love Jesus just as any heterosexual Christian family would. We take our kids to church and participate in our church. Our children would not be harmed if we were allowed to legally marry, they would be more protected. But let's put marriage aside, I don't care if you call it a civil union just so our children get the legal protections any child would have from belonging to a family -- that's all we ask for.
Oh, and by the way, there are many Christians who allow and recognize same-sex unions, ceremony and all. It's there, opposing view Christians can't do anything about it. It's the government that we want to recogize our joining so that we can have LEGAL protections as every other member of the United States society has. This is a Civil Rights issue. In the United States there's separation of religion and State, so you're trying to impose your religious views on a government function. Our country was founded to fight having a religion dictate what parameters our government is run under.
God Bless You!
February 27, 2008 8:17 AM | Comment Permalink
Suricou - you've fallen hook, line and sinker (fishing term - yes we are avid fishermen too) for the lies that children will be "harmed" by having two mommies or two daddies. Our daughter, her husband (great guy) and four children (two boys and two girls)would all disagree that two dads and three grandpas was, or is, harmful in any way to our family. I wish you peace.
February 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Comment Permalink
"Social conservatives will gag on several things he says, including his declaration, “We as a society can and should accept the dignity of homosexual love.”"
If social conservatives have trouble suppressing their gag reflex in order to respect the dignity of gay and lesbian relationships then I suggest that they examine exactly what they are choking on. It’s more likely to be their own ego or ignorance and or self-righteousness than it is gay or lesbian people.
The "gag reflex" is a well-known failing of human beings. It not that long ago in this country that people had that same exact reaction at the thought of a black man and white woman falling in love and getting married. What’s next they would say, people getting married to their dogs and cats?
I've been blessed in my life to see quite a few gay and lesbian relationships up close and personal. They are neither more nor less flawed or sublime than relations between straight people.
I remember when my friend David was dying, the simple every-day human grace that his partner Michael would display as he took care of him. He was always there with a kind word or gentle touch, even when changing David's diapers during his last days. If you want to truly see love in action, then witness two people taking care of each other in "sickness and in health".
More recently I've been watching another gay couple I know take care of each other. Both Marines, they were also both wounded severely in Iraq by separate I.E.D.'s. They met and fell in love as they were recovering from their injuries. Both have TBI and PTSD, so they don't respond well to loud noises. But last year during a thunderstorm, one of them crawled upstairs just to make sure that his sleeping partner was "all right". He crawled because he had left his legs upstairs and the storm had cut the power to the handicap lift he normally uses.
If you cannot see the dignity and grace in "homosexual" relationships that is not because it doesn't exist, it’s because you have intentionally blinded yourselves to it. You look upon gay and lesbian human beings and you take "human beings" out of the sentence. You have turned the hearts in your chests into icy black rocks. It is no wonder you are gagging.
February 27, 2008 7:45 PM | Comment Permalink
Deb,
I wish you come here to Massachusetts, I would be proud to have you as my neighbor.
Dwin,
Suricou is one of the good guys, she is being sarcastic.
February 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Comment Permalink