NOM BLOG

We Can Reclaim America and Restore Our Future

 

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today is a historic day by any measure.

NOM joins the nation in extending our best wishes and prayers to President Barack Obama as he takes the oath of office for a second term as President of these United States of America. We hope and pray that President Obama is able in his second term to bring America together, to heal the divisions that exist in our nation, and to put our country on a firmer path to recovery and well-being for American families. We pray as well for the president's family and thank them for accepting the sacrifices that public service imposes on men and women who pursue it.

Today is also the day that we celebrate the birth of one of our great national leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King is rightly known as one of the greatest civil rights leaders in our nation's history, a cause he paid for with his life.

It is fitting that President Obama today takes the oath of office on two bibles — one belonging to Abraham Lincoln, and the other to Dr. King.

But as I reflect on the America we live in today and the society we are building for my eight children, I can't help but be concerned. Too many of our people live in poverty. They are impoverished not only by unemployment and the throes of a struggling economy, but by cultural forces that rob people of their inherent, God-given dignity, and entice them through false prophets and by false promises, often peddled in the guise of providing pleasure but that ultimately bring nothing but sadness and even despair.

Last November during the same election that sent President Obama to a second term, three states allowed marriage to be redefined with the president's misguided encouragement. If this is the path we're on, and it's not a good one. The President bears considerable responsibility for this as a result of his abandonment of the eternal truth of the uniqueness of the marriage relationship.

Yet as I watch the pageantry of a presidential inauguration I am reminded of the vast power and potential of our country to be a tremendous force for good.

How do we help America get on a better path, one that uplifts families, that inspires future generations to greatness?

Very simply, I think we need to call our nation to good — to pursue law and policies that promote social good and are based on moral truths.

I think one key is in the words of Dr. King, set forth so articulately in the spring of 1963 while sitting in jail in Birmingham, Alabama. King's Letter From Birmingham Jail called the nation to understand that there are just laws, and unjust ones. Dr. King said, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Dr. King went on note that segregation laws were plainly unjust: "All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

Marriage is the very type of relationship that Dr. King would no doubt have recognized as just, rooted as it is in the moral law, observed over thousands of years as an eternal law, in perfect harmony with the law of God. It is a profoundly just institution that brings men and women together and provides children with the best opportunity to be raised by a mother and a father.

So many of our laws and policies today are out of harmony with natural law and nature's God. The killing of the preborn innocent in the name of privacy; the euthanizing of the infirm in the name of compassion; the destruction of embryonic humans in the name of advancement; the protection of pornography purveyors and the merchants of violence in Hollywood and the video game industry in the name of free speech; and the restructuring of instutions like marriage to provide emotional satisfaction to politically powerful adults, even as they strip from the law the right of children to a mother and father.

No, indeed, we as a nation are not on a good path.

But it is not too late to change direction and to choose a better path. If we are willing to keep Dr. King's admonition in mind to pursue policies that are just, that are in harmony with eternal, natural and moral law, then we can reclaim America and restore our future.

NOM is committed to working with all policymakers, legislators, judges and officials — President Obama included — to support policies that strengthen marriage and thereby uplift American families, protect children and advance the common good. That is our commitment to the nation, and that is our promise to you.

On this historic day, may God continue to richly bless this country, her elected and appointed officials, and the men and women who serve under her flag.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

16 Comments

  1. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Typo correction: "Deutsch had made his claim about the use of metaphors when he thought that bodily union was merely a metaphor and not real."

  2. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    To David in Houston:

    Please define SSM for of society, David in Houston. Not a private definition or definition(s).

  3. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Will Fisher said:

    "I think that a same sex couple that is willing to take on the same legal responsibilities as my wife and I ought to have the same rights."

    Why would you limit that accomodation to the couple? What is the basis for a count of two persons in a same-sex scenario?

    Regardless of number, and regardless of sexual attraction, no scenario that lacks the other sex can provide for responsible procreation. See the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity.

    A lone person is a one-sexed scenario. A twosome, threesome, or morseome -- indeed a parade of persons of the same-sex -- all of these are scenarios lacking the sexual basis for co-equal parental status.

    So, apart from that big central responsibility, you are okay with the same-sex scenario provided the participants are willing?

    But again, look at the siblings.

    Assume they are same-sexed friends. Assume their friendship is not sexual and that neither of the siblings is a member of the gay identity group. Would their willingness trump their ineligibility to SSM? Please explain.

    But go the other way and assume they are in a sexualized relationship. Assume that each of the siblings is a member of the gay identity group. Would their willingness trump their ineligibility to SSM?

    If your answer is yes, in both cases, then, the sexual stuff is not decisive. Nor is the gay identity stuff. Willingness would be the trump card.

    But you answer no, in the first case, but yes, in the second case, then, their being siblings is trumped by the very stuff that SSMers emphasize when they complain about the marriage law and demand the revision to favor the type of relationship they have in mind.

    If you answer, no, in both cases, then, willingness is not without content, even in your view, and so we return to the defining features of the type of relationship that you have in mind that would justly distinguish SSM from the rest of the types of one-sexed relationships that would be ineligible to SSM.

    Sometimes SSMers use rhetoric and argumentation that is like jelly -- almost impossible to pin down. Perhaps you can be more substantive and less superifical than most SSMers.

  4. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    In previous comment I quoted David Blankenhorn from his book in 2009 and compared it with his New York Times op-ed piece of 2011.

    I think that MLK's beliefs make it clear that society is duty bound to draw our laws closer to the moral truth than to falsehoods.

    White identity politics was raised to the level of supremacy and that lowered societal regard for the most fundamental freedoms that are due the human being.

    Gay identity politics is now being raised to such a level. Sure, some, perhaps Blankenhorn, might now surrender because they imagine that gay identity politics, held supreme above marriage (our most pro-child social institution, according to Blankenhorn), would be more benign than white supremacy. However, its corruptive influence has touched so much, already, that the benign view would be very naive indeed.

    Either one supports the supremacy of gay identity politics or one is appalled and stands against it. There can be no middle ground. Read MLK on the supremacy of white identity politics and the analogy is very close.

    Blankenhorn understood the non-marriage use to which the SSM campaign would put the marriage law. I have always seen how the gay emphasis is corruptive in this regard, however, take the gay out of the SSM idea and ask yourself what is left.

    I ask SSMers, take the gay out of your SSM rhetoric and argumentation. What then would be left for you to say about marriage law?

  5. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Barb Chamberlan, thanks.

    Good News,

    You asked:

    "How, or where, or would you, introduce into your arguments the concept that now (more than ever in human history) same-sex couples can produce, conceive their own children? And how does this play into the SSMer's arguments.
    The idea being that if opposite sex couples can by law use science and artificial means to produce their own babies (the correctness or not of this topic having never come up in our society), why would it not be just for same sex couples to do so?"

    Individuals, solo, can use artificial means, also, under the currently unregulated "fertility" industry.

    An individual is a one-sex-short scenario -- and in this sense no different from the one-sex short twosome, moresome, threesome, and so forth.

    Human fertility is two-sexed, not one-sexed.

    What this highlights is that the industry (and I say that advisedly because, yes, there is manufacture going on) is not really serving a fertility problem but rather they are producing widgets (human widgets) for customers.

    Now, this definitive characteristic of the industry has been smothered with a great deal of sentimentalism. That is, the negligence of letting these practices ripen was fueled in large part by compassion for married couples who exprienced infertility. But infertility is not the center of the industry.

    Most married people do not exprience infertility. Of those who do, most already have children. Of those who seek medical attention, most resolve their fertility troubles through behavioral changes. A small subset resort to these manufacturing processes at great cost -- in terms of ethics, morality, interpersonal relations within their family, and materially -- especially financial but also in lost opportunities to spend their family budgets on other things. And there are the costs in health -- especially of the wives.

    But there are also other deep costs for the other participants such as the "donors" of sperm, ova, or womb-use. I think that the technicians who serve the industry also pay an ethical and moral cost. But I also consider the material costs -- including the financial -- especially in terms of lost opportunity to expend on other things that actually save lives or cure illnesses directly related to human procreation.

    So, yes, we have fallen behind the industry and are currently "eating dust" and will eventually pay the societal costs beyond those that have already been accumulated.

    So, the industry's practices are not truly justified for anyone's use. One need only consider the tragic irony that the industry routinely aborts (or puts on ice) children conceived but unwanted by the customers who were motivated to create children in the first place. That ought to prick our public moral conscience and prompt us to take heed now.

    There is a liberal case against the industry. There is a conservative case. There is a libertarian case. There is a religious case and a secular case against the industry. But the case for the industry usually comes down to -- we can do it so it is okay to do it. The "it" is manufacture of human beings. Society needs to hear all the arguments against it because their full weight is decisive next to the superficial arguments in favor of 1) low or ineffective regulation, 2) letting the industry lead on the ethical issues, and 3) granting some such power over others.

    As for the implications with marriage, well, when SSMers point to these practices, they point outside of the marital relationship.

    This stuff is extramarital -- even when married people participate.

    The fact that one-sex scenarios might depend on such practices makes this clear: this stuff is extrinsic to the one-sexed scenario as per the need to import into the one-sexed scenario the basics of human procreation by manufacture.

    Consider the contrast with the marital presumption of paternity which is based on the nature of human procreation. Coital relations and impregnation are the default of this legal and cultural presumption of marriage.

    Going outside of the husband-wife relationship is extramarital procreation. Now, most married people who use IVF and ARTs (Artificial Reproduction Technologies) do not use other people's gametes. They use their own sperm and ova and bodies. They do hire labs to assist in some way or another, yes, but they do not import the basics. They do experience infertility and yet IVF and ARTs do not treat their infertility. There are other treatments for infertility that help most married couples in this regard. So it is important to keep track of these distinctions when discussing the conflict between the marriage idea and the SSM idea.

    Always, the one-sexed scenario goes outside of the relationship. That is definitive of how such a scenario might do what is extrinsic to it -- procreate.

    Any attempt to lock the one-sexed scenario to the married scenario would be an anti-marriage move.

    In short, the industry does not provide for responsible procreation when it facilitates extramarital procreation. The manufacture of human beings is not responsible procreation nor is it marital.

    SSM is not marital and no one-sexed relationship can provide for responsible procreation so any procreation that would take place would also be extramarital.

    But marital status does not transform third party procreation into the core meaning of marriage. No more than, say, open swinging (as the kids call it) would make adultery the core meaning of marriage.

  6. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Good News, I have a substantive response to your query. It is in the que.

  7. Paul Conley
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    I am filled every day with the hope and wonder that comes from knowing that ALL of NOM are going to burn in hell. It's because of all of you that gays are committing suicide right now. You have created a culture of fear, hate and violence against gays and their brothers and sisters. To you, being gay is shameful and wrong, but I submit to you this question: Which is the greater evil, living freely as equals to our straight brothers and sisters, or being shoved into some comfortable box so that YOU all can be happy? You are all worse than murderers and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Love is love is love is LOVE! It doesn't matter if it's between two men, two women or one man and one woman. Or three men and one woman. Or five women and one man. If there's love, it's love and it's sacred and it's powerful. It's bigger than you and your narrow-minded prejudice. To stand in the way of that is hateful, evil and wrong. So please, keep screaming your hate speak, but you're never going to win. There are too few of you and too many of us.

  8. leehawks
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Brian & Maggie:

    Please see the reference mentioned by Ash @ #44:

    "(A good place to start is Gage Riley's article: http://vjspl.org/PDF/Spring2012/_Gage.pdf)"

    and refer this to your defense team and those of the Prop 8 and DOMA SCOTUS cases. I think this Riley fellow is really on to something citing the presumption of paternity as a central purpose of marriage. This could help. Great find, ASH!

  9. Ash
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    You're very welcome, Leehawks! I share that article as much as possible on these threads. The historical analysis is wonderful for anyone interested in the institution of marriage, and the legal analysis is icing on the cake.

    It's this simple: 1) the presumption of paternity has been a core feature of our marriage tradition; 2) the presumption is still in operation today, and offers distinct advantages to society in spite of the advent of DNA testing; 3) the presumption only makes sense when applied to opposite-sex couples; 4) since the presumption would become farcical as applied to same-sex couples, then reserving marriage to opposite-sex unions is rational--in fact, the presumption of paternity is a compelling reason for the state not to recognize same-sex couples as marriages.

    Contrary to Judge Walker's claim in the Prop 8 trial, marriage *does* have something to do with who becomes a parent and the inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage *would* affect the recording of parentage for heterosexuals.

    This has all been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt with the conflicting parentage presumptions that arose in the In re: M.C. case in CA that resulted in a temporary ruling of three parents--because of a same-sex marriage.

    Dr. Morse discusses the presumption of paternity in her writings and speeches, but this article is just extraordinary.

  10. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul reminded us that "siblings are already related."

    So the fact that they were born that way is your basis for denying them the advantages that you demand for others. Noted.

    I think that negates the born-that-way rationale for SSM, but perhaps you would clarify your intended meaning.

    You are aware, I am sure, that some related people are eligible to SSM in those places where it has been imposed. It is evident that you'd propose that prioritization of familial relations must apply to SSM. But what is the justification?

    You can't just say, well, there is a legal requirement regarding relatedness and that is that. You do not accept the legal requirement for bride-plus-groom. You demand its justification and, being disatisfied with any justification offered, you demand its abolition. So fair is fair. You want to keep a ban on some people from SSM, then, you are obliged to justify it rather than merely assert it.

  11. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul,

    You would deny siblings the legal advantages that you demand for others. That is the point. The siblings are banned from SSM. Their relationship would fall short of the legal status you claim for other all-male or all-female relationships.

    Some related people can SSM where SSM is entrenched in the law. So, unless you want to change that, then, you are okay with prioritization of familial relationships.

    Besides, there is nothing intrinsic to an all-male or an all-female scenario that would make unrelated people related. We could do blood tests and learn that there is no change in their DNA, for instance.

    Perhaps you meant metaphorical relatedness.

    So through a legal fiction, SSM law would do what the relationship cannot do without a change in legal status. That means it that creating relatedness is a function of the law to make up for a shortfall in reality.

    Well, people who are already related should not have that held against them if the endpoint is that those who are SSM'd are now related for the purpose of gaining legal advantages. They'd be similarly situated -- except for the legal advantages that you would deny them. That discrimination needs justification. Your comment merely highlighted the problem.

    Unless you'd flat-out rely on the arbitrary use of governmental power, you must justify banning people from SSM. Do you really think that a metaphor is a sound basis for such a ban?

    You cannot just point at a legal requirement and say that is that.Just a moment ago you complained about the bride-plus-groom requirement for marriage; you demanded its justification and, dissatisfied with any justification offered, you demanded its abolition. So fair is fair. You must justify the ban against some people who'd SSM.

    If you claim that siblings already enjoy all the legal advantages of those who'd SSM, then, why call it something different -- and what would you call it anyway? Separate but equal is something you rejected for the sake of gay identity politics. That demand has been based on the born-that-way mantra. So why hold it against siblings who are born that way?

  12. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    Relatedness can be based on a legal fiction for good reasons. Identity politics is a very poor reason, however, and I think we can see that if we consider an analogy.

    Adoption changes the status of the adopters and the adoptees; it makes unrelated people legally related.

    We allow people to adopt children to whom they are already related. Indeed, in adoption practices and policies we also prioritize familial relationships. So neither of those considerations is really a problem in itself regarding family formation.

    Adoption is first and foremost for children in need; it is not above all for needy adults. Sure, some needy adults might manage to adopt children, however, that generally is not in the best interests of adoptees. We do not shape adoption for the sake of adult neediness. That is not the purpose of making unrelated people related. To the extent that adoption policy-making is distorted by adult neediness, we fall short of the child-centered purpose of adoption practices.

    Does adoption change the DNA of those involved? Nope. The law does what the adult-child relationship cannot do; the rest is up to the relationship.

    Now, SSMers might read this and think these are points in favor of their SSM idea. Well, maybe so, however, we must return to the question of banning some people from SSM and the lack of justification for that.

    The marriage idea and the SSM idea are very different. The line drawn based on relatedness demonstrates this quite readily.

  13. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:56 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul said:

    "There is no categorical presumption of procreation."

    Oh, well, if you say so then I guess that is that.

    Not.

    The legal presumption of paternity is a default of marital status. Its sexual basis is the starting place for the presumption that the husband will father children born to he and his wife. This is what the bride and groom consent to when they say, I do, and when they gain marital status. Also see the two-sexed sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery and so forth. This is what makes the marital presumption of paternity a reasonable and vigorously enforced center piece of marriage law.

    It is based on reality, not fiction.

    No one-sexed scenario can provide the rationale for a sexual basis to presume that a person has impregnated or has been impregnated by another person of the same sex. Perhaps, if you like things to be categorical, you would like that obvious fact of life and fact of law.

    Hence, there is no sexual basis for a categorical presumption of co-equal parental status for those who'd SSM. And, your quip reinforces this point. There is nothing intrinsic to SSM that makes procreation a default legal presumption. We will agree on that obvious point, also.

  14. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul said:

    "Integrative, segratative - rhetorical window dressing I'm afraid. They add nothing to the terms same sex or opposite sex."

    Actually, based on your own rhetoric and argumentation in favor of SSM, the type of relationship you have in mind is segregative based on 1) sex of the participants, 2) sexual attraction (male attraction or female attraction), and 3) group identity (gay identity politics as per your gay emphasis).

    These three segregative features are strongly desired by those who'd SSM, we are told, and this is the big reason to impose SSM on all of society.

    Your own words tell us this much. So if it is window dressing, then, you have dressed the window with some rather sour fruit baskets.

  15. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:26 am | Permalink

    Good News asked:

    "How, or where, or would you, introduce into your arguments the concept that now (more than ever in human history) same-sex couples can produce, conceive their own children? And how does this play into the SSMer's arguments."

    No one-sexed scenario can conceive and procreate within that scenario. Being a gay relationship does not overcome this inability. Science has not changed this fact of life.

    SSMers will argue a false equivalence. They claim that the one-sex-short scenario is the moral equivalent, and the practical equivalent, of the infertile husband and wife. This is wrong on many levels.

    In terms of the nature of human procreation -- whether or not labs get involved in the manipulation of sperm and ova -- there is a huge distinction biologically and morally.

    The lack of the other sex is not infertility. Fertility is an ability. Infertility is a disability -- a disabling of the procreative powers of the man-woman duo. The all-male or the all-female scenario precludes fertility; it is non-fertile for the inability is intrinsic and the ability (fertility) is not disabled.

    The US Supreme Court precedent has agreed with this distinction.

    We are told, of course, that the lack of the other sex is highly desirable and is not experienced as a disability in itself. Why? Due to sexual attraction and/or gay identity. But that stuff does not transform the lack of the other sex into infertility nor into a disability. SSMers balk at calling same-sex sexual attraction a disability. So they comprehend the lack of moral equivalence even if they only vaguely are in touch with the falsehood of their offered practical equivalence.

    This is a very significant point. They do not really believe what they argue regarding fertility, infertility, and homosexual orientation.

    Jon Rauch famously claimed that a woman without a uterus is the same as a man. The absurdity of his argument manages to discredit the entire fertility strawman argument of SSMers.

    Sex difference is a fact of life and, according to SSMers, it is a big deal as far as those who'd SSM. That, too, is obvious, right? So how can a woman be the same as a man even by their lights. They object whenever it is pointed out that some people who have experienced same-sex sexual attraction have happily married (ie formed unions of husband and wife) and engaged in sexual consummation and procreated together. The SSMers dislike the reality that distinguishes marriaged from non-marriage just about as much as they disdain the difference between men and women even as they rely on such difference to justify the sex-segregative type of relationship they have in mind for SSM.

    Describing their twists and turns can get confusing; but that is the point of their rhetoric and argumentation -- to confuse rather than to enlighten.

    So we shed light. To repeat: the lack of the other sex is not infertility. Sex difference matters. Even those one-sexed scenarios that seek out gametes of the other sex (or even bodies for gestation) tell us this is a reality. Remember, a lone individual is nonfertile -- like a same-sex twosome or threesome or a parade of persons of the same sex. Within the one-sex-short scenario there is a lack of ability -- an inability -- that pretty much defines SSM even according to the SSMers who point outside of the SSM relationship to third party procreation and the reliance on labs.

    That too is a significant point: third party procreation is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. They go outside of the marital relationship.

    But most married people do not experience infertility. Of those who do, most resolve their problems through behavioral changes. And most already have children. And, of those who rely on fertility treatments, most will procreate together. Most do not resort to third party procreation: about 92% of the tiny subset of married people who use IVF or ARTs (Artificial Reproduction Technologies), use their own gametes and do not go outside of their marital relationship.

    So it comes down to a focus on the very tiny segment of the tiny subset that does partake of third party procreation. This practice is extramarital. Usually the labs are reluctant to impregnate the wife with third party sperm without the express agreement of the husband. See the marital presumption of paternity. There is legislation in some jurisdictions that shields the sperm "donor" from paternity; and that shields the husband from attacks on his paternity -- a paternity that he might try to rebut based on his not impregnating his wife but also a paternity that the sperm "donor" or someone else might challenge on that same sexual basis.

    Anyway, married couples who partake of these practices tend to experience great stress on their marital relationship. It is something that goes deeper than mere appearances would suggest.

    Of course, the infertility, the attempts to treat it, and the eventual desperate resort to novel methods and interventions -- as well as the relationship issues -- all points to tension between the marriage idea (as we know it and live it) and the deliberate efforts to disunite motherhood and fatherhood artificially.

    This stuff is extrinsic or foreign to the one-sex-short scenarios. The lone individual or the twosome or the moresome are the same as each other in the most basic ways but in those ways distinctly different precisely due to sex difference.

    As I said, sex difference is central to the very notion that one sex must segregate from the other in a type of relationship that the SSMers have in mind. The disunity of motherhood and fatherhood is thus barely worthy of shrug in the pursuit of manufacturing children for such customers.

  16. Chairm
    Posted January 27, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Readers: Please compare and contrast David Blankenhorn's discussion of the "interracial" marriage analogy -- first in his book released in 2009, and second in his pro-SSM switcharoo published in the New York Times in 2011.

    He has yet to offer the sound moral argument in favor of that switcheroo. The fact is that he brought into the discussion his own moral formation. He made this about a question of morality and moral reasoning.

    It may be that he thought he could pretend to be in favor of the pro-marriage position just long enough to lend him street cred for his pre-planned switcharoo. In his book he openly talked about trying to get ahead of the trend lines and in his New York Times op-ed he admitted that he was catching up with the so-called elites (in universities) who have influenced young people (in universities).

    His flimsy excuse, in that op-ed, was that he had spent about 3 years trying to convince those elites but felt like a failure on that score. So he chose to switch. It is not plausible. He says it is so but he has not explained what he thinks has changed and he has not said he was wrong on the merits in his book that advocated the pro-marriage position quite clearly. He said he has not recanted any of that.

    But there is his switcharoo. It does appear to be politically motivated. It does not look credible -- except to the audience to whom he now hopes to lead to a softer approach to imposition of the SSM idea. Readers do the compare and contrast and look into this more deeply with a questioning attitude.

    Blankenhorn owes the public discussion some real answers.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.