7 Comments

1. Rob Tisinai
   Posted June 23, 2010 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

   This is odd. Here's what Blankenorn wrote in his letter to the editor:

   Maureen Down incorrectly reports that, in the California Prop 8 trial on gay marriage, I stated on the witness stand that “adoptive parents are as good as natural parents.” I respect adoptive parents and value adoption as an institution, but numerous studies suggests that outcomes for adopted children often are not “as good as” outcomes for children raised by natural parents.

   But here's how it went down in court when Boies cross-examined him:

   Boise: In fact, the studies show that all other things being equal, two adoptive parents raising a child from birth will do as well as two biological parents raising a child from birth, correct?

   Blankenhorn: No, sir, that's incorrect.

   Boise: Well, sir --

   Blankenhorn: May I say another word on that, please?

   Boies: You will have an opportunity on redirect.

   Blankenhorn: Okay. It was a clarifying thing and actually supports something you just said. The studies show that adoptive parents, because of the rigorous screening process that they undertake before becoming adoptive parents, actually on some outcomes outstrip the biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children.

   So according to Blankenhorn, adoptive parents aren't "as good as" biological parents -- studies show they're better. Somehow, I don't think that's what he's trying to convey in his letter to the editor -- or the message NOM is trying to convey with this blog entry.

2. Rob Tisinai
   Posted June 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

   Oops, I forgot the link so everyone can check Blankenhorn's testimony for themselves.

   http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Perry-Vol-11-1-26-10.pdf

3. Clark
   Posted June 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

   I'm not sure David did anything at all for the defense. His testimony will go down in history as the last gasp of this entire discriminatory movement.

4. Marty
   Posted June 24, 2010 at 10:55 am | Permalink

   Rob, you're missing the "all other things being equal" premise. Because of the rigorous screening, all other things are NOT equal.

   Absolutely adoptive parents will be wealthier and better educated than the general pool of all bio parents.

5. Rob Tisinai
   Posted June 24, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

   Marty, in what way does your point reconcile the radical disconnect between Blankenhorn's testimony and his later characterization of this testimony in this letter?

6. Brad
   Posted June 24, 2010 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

   Rob, can you step back from your fact finding mission and look at plain common sense for a moment? A natural biological mother and father is best for children. Thats the basis of our court case, for which 45 states agree and will be validated by the Supreme Court.

7. Marty
   Posted June 25, 2010 at 10:25 am | Permalink

   Nothing to reconcile Rob, it seems perfectly clear to me. Let me paraphrase what I'm reading here:

   Boise: All things being equal, adopted kids do as well as bio kids

   Blankenhorn: False premise -- because all things are NOT equal, adoptive kids often do better than bio kids.

   Which if anything, sounds like an argument in favor of (draconian & intrusive) means & ability testing for ALL prospective parents.