From: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...kenhorn19-2008sep19,0,6057126.story?track=rss
David Blankenhorn published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times
Im a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together. Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and Ive come to a different conclusion. Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. ...In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didnt last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father ? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriages most distinctive contribution to human society. Thats a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.
Thanks,
TT
David Blankenhorn published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times
Im a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together. Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and Ive come to a different conclusion. Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. ...In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didnt last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father ? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriages most distinctive contribution to human society. Thats a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.
Thanks,
TT
