Brazen Blankenhorn

“I’m a Liberal Democrat” is how David Blankenhorn of the Los Angeles Times begins his narrow-minded op-ed, arguing that marriage “is primarily a license to have children.” I don’t think claiming to be a Liberal will veil your true feelings Mr. Blankenhorn, nor excuse you from the fallacies you conjure up. Apparently, studying a year of anthropology now entitles anyone to scientifically support their homophobia, asserting that marriage should only occur between men and women. Interestingly enough, I think you missed a few things while “studying” anthropology. According to the American Anthropological Association,

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Blankenhorn goes on to cite anthropologist Helen Fisher’s 1992 (outdated) claim that “People wed primarily to reproduce.” I must have missed the memo regarding procreation as the number one reason to marry a significant other. Perhaps it is too idealistic to assume that people marry one another because of a deep love they share. Blankenhorn’s main argument supporting a ban on gay marriage is to ensure the healthy development of a child, which is best achieved through biological parents raising the child. Well, certainly Blankenhorn would oppose adoption and divorce. Adopting would be out-of-the-question since a child would be “denied his birthright to both parents who made him.” And divorce would also be outrageous, since he believes (with his heart, of course) the right of a child to the mother and father that made him. In following his reasoning, a child that is raised by two abusive birth parents is better off than being raised by a loving and successful gay couple. More than fifty-percent of marriages end in divorce, and many children are being raised by single parents. Adoption of children from all different regions of the world is common and accepted. The “traditional” family unit no longer exists, and there are no conclusive studies that prove that gay couples would raise a child any different, or less ‘healthy,’ than a man and woman. We pride ourselves on equality, yet don’t practice what we preach.

Instead of hiding behind the pretext of child rights, Blankenhorn is better off admitting his blatant ignorance and joining the likes of Palin and Bush Jr. (and Sr. too I suppose).