Gay Patriot Header Image

Rauch & Blankenhorn’s “New” Thinking on Gay Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:19 pm - February 27, 2009.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage

Those who follow the serious debate on gay marriage know that Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn have become the two most responsible voices on their respective sides of the issue.  Last week, these two adversaries teamed up to offer A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage in the New York Times.  And for once, the Old Gray Lady serves the role she would like to serve, as a source of intelligent discussion on controversial subjects.

While Rauch and Blankenhorn disagree “on the merits of gay marriage,” they do “agree on two facts:”

First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon

They recognize the “parade of horribles” about which proponents of Proposition 8 warned us in their successful campaign last fall to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution. Both men want to ensure that religious organizations are not required to recognize unions at odds with their doctrines.

Thus they favor federal recognition of same-sex civil unions with “with robust religious-conscience exceptions:”

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

I have hesitated to blog on this because, well, I’m not sure I agree with their solution. And I guess I feel that if I blog on something I must express an opinion.  Well, I do have an opinion.  And this is it. It’s refreshing to see two adversaries on gay marriage work together to forge a compromise which recognizes the concerns of both sides.

Neither brands the other a hater or moral degenerate. Each man understands the other’s arguments. Together they come up with a novel solution. And that’s the real good thing about their proposal, finally some new thinking on this controversial issue.

Share

77 Comments

  1. Pat,

    Its not semantics, its English. My entire point is that straight people can create life, and gays cannot. But ILC, in typical Bill Clinton fashion wants to redefine what the meaning of reproduce is.

    He wants it to mean adopt. He wants it to mean piano lessons or whatever the hell this is supposed to mean

    [BUT] It remains also true that adoption reproduces aspects of the couple that are broader and more important than the genetic:

    Fine, ILC can believe reproduce means whatever he wants in his own little freakazopid, psychologically disturbed world.

    For the rest of us in reality, the ability to create LIFE is an important ability that ONLY heterosexuality is capable of

    And I truly am sick to death of having to deal with ILCs psychoses and insecurities every time i try to make that important distinction.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - February 28, 2009

  2. Filtered.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - February 28, 2009

  3. A male couple I know just became parents to a baby who is genetically related to them both. It happens all the time.

    Only if one of them is reproducing with the others female relative. Which is pretty sick.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - February 28, 2009

  4. here is more on Gay Marriage, The Gipper and . . .

    I see, so we should accept the “it happened over 40 years ago” only when it applies to liberals like Moyers.

    Got it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 28, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - February 28, 2009

  5. TGC. just a little food for thought. ‘ folk change their minds. ‘

    and here’s something to get yours and I am sure AE and NDT panties in a big twist.

    A new national study based on data from a top-ten online adult entertainment provider reveals that Utah has the highest per-capita consumption of online porn in the nation. But it’s not just Utah. More generally, states that generally more conservative and religious are also among the best consumers of online porn. BTB

    like the skin on V the K’s site also

    Ciao

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:40 am - March 1, 2009

  6. #50 AE, you are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 12:43 am - March 1, 2009

  7. Most gay marriage opponents are disgusting excuses for human beings.

    Comment by Attmay — March 1, 2009 @ 3:43 am - March 1, 2009

  8. Differently Abled Dave,

    Coming from you that is utterly meaningless.

    Got your helmet and bib on tight?

    Comment by American Elephant — March 1, 2009 @ 5:14 am - March 1, 2009

  9. #56 No, not most only some. Just like only some of those for gay marriage resort to violent actions and hostile words. It just so happens that a few of the more repulsive anti-gay lunatics have chosen to comment on here regularly claiming to be “conservative”.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 1, 2009

  10. let go your hatred attmay, lead you to the dark side it will.

    AE, I joke all the time about a friend getting pregnant by her step=brother because her husband’s had a vasectomy (no funds to reverse it)

    No I mean by artifical insemination., but the truth remains that “All the DNA is there.” Is that sick by you?

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 1, 2009 @ 11:25 am - March 1, 2009

  11. and here’s something to get yours and I am sure AE and NDT panties in a big twist.

    Why? No, seriously, what sort of conclusions are you and your fellow bigots at Box Turtle Bulletin trying to draw from this?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - March 1, 2009

  12. “bigots at Box Turtle Bulletin”

    meaning “they wouldn’t let me spread my vile hate all over their comments? You are the poster child for anti-gay rhetoric so you calling someone else a bigot is ludicrous.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - March 1, 2009

  13. A bigot is a person who, without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own — wiki

    MIRROR MIRROR on the wall NDT has said it all.

    but then being such a true christian: Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone, guess NDT just missed that sunday school class

    Comment by rusty — March 1, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - March 1, 2009

  14. meaning “they wouldn’t let me spread my vile hate all over their comments?

    “Vile hate” is a rather amusing accusation to make, adDave, when you consider what their other commenters were saying and what they ended up doing to someone who they thought was me.

    Oddly enough, Burroway and Kincaid tried like hell to scrub the site after I posted what their commenters were saying, plus the fact that they had deliberately allowed it to remain up. But that is, after all, what website saves and Google Cache are for, so you may rest assured that I have proof that you and your fellow gay liberals not only don’t think that calling someone a pedophile is “vile hate”, you’re all about publicly outing someone, encouraging other people to attack them, making smears about their mental health, and getting their entire identity wrong in the process.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 7:13 pm - March 1, 2009

  15. #50 AE – Come on, dude. More personal invective, please. I know you can do better. You haven’t lied about your opponent (me) enough in this thread! MORE!!!!1! LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2009 @ 8:40 pm - March 1, 2009

  16. [David] A male couple I know just became parents to a baby who is genetically related to them both. It happens all the time.

    [AE] Only if one of them is reproducing with the others female relative. Which is pretty sick.

    You know, AE, it’s funny to hear you say that, because it’s in the Bible that a guy was punished by God when he *wouldn’t* reproduce with his former sister-in-law. His brother became infertile… through death (i.e., being killed). He was expected to take over her (as one of his wives) and reproduce with her the ancient way (no clinical assisted techniques, in those days). But he kept “spilling his seed on the ground”, as one possible English translation goes. God was displeased with him for that: not for the masturbation per se, but for refusing to obey his orders and produce heirs for his brother. It’s an interesting story, as an ancient culture study and as a human drama; you might want to look into it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 1, 2009 @ 8:53 pm - March 1, 2009

  17. #63 See NDT, there’s a difference between you and I. I understand that there are liberals who are idiots and say and do hostile things and that there are millions of conservatives who are civil and reasonable. You ob the other hand are unable to differentiate. Whatever those you point to may have said it does nothing to change the repulsiveness that flows from your twisted mind.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - March 1, 2009

  18. No I mean by artifical insemination., but the truth remains that “All the DNA is there.” Is that sick by you?

    Yeah, I think wanting your sister to have your partners baby whether by traditional means or artificial insemination is pretty f*cked in the head.

    And no, its not going to have his DNA, its going to have his sister’s DNA, which is different than his. The child will not be related to him as a son or daughter, but as a niece or nephew.

    And to be so screwed in the head and unable to accept that gays cant reproduce together, that you feel it necessary to have your partner procreate with your sister….

    yeah, its majorly fucked in the head. Here’s an idea, why not send your friend to a shrink, and a biologist and have him work out why he cant accept biological facts?

    Comment by American Elephant — March 1, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - March 1, 2009

  19. *blinks*
    Reads his post again, confirms he did write ‘step-brother’
    *blinks again*
    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will get mowed down in the crossfire.”
    *looks at adDave actually agreeing with ILC*
    *takes one big step out of the way*
    Gentlemen, fire at will.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 2, 2009 @ 6:48 am - March 2, 2009

  20. OMG-D, NDT look at this:

    those pesky christian folk are now promoting within the walls of THE CHURCH. Sacred Heart Prep doing the God BOX.

    –Writing on her personal blog “The thoughts of a teenage girl” on Dec. 15, 2008, a young woman who says she plays “Angie, who is the lead character’s girlfriend,” and had just returned from her first rehearsal of “Be Still and Know,” had this to say of the play:

    “With the passing of Prop 8, I think that California needs a nice dose of humanity.

    The show does a beautiful job of defending homosexuality with the bible, the very thing most commonly used to condemn it, including Leviticus 18:22 (‘Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination’), to which Carlos (Manuel) Cordero, and openly gay, Christian teen in the play, responds, ‘The Bible also say that eating shellfish is an abomination… Does anyone who eats shrimp commit a lesser crime than homosexuality?’

    The show is smart, and powerful, and will cause many people to reconsider their beliefs about homosexuality.”

    Comment by rusty — March 2, 2009 @ 8:17 am - March 2, 2009

  21. And no, its not going to have his DNA, its going to have his sister’s DNA, which is different than his. The child will not be related to him as a son or daughter, but as a niece or nephew.

    You’re half right, AE. Genetically, the child will be related as a niece or nephew. I’m not sure what you mean by “have his DNA.” A child has exactly half the DNA of each biological parent. Siblings share about half the DNA (could be more, could be less, depending on the luck of the draw). So the child would have about a quarter of the partner’s DNA.

    As for the legality, morality, or ick factor about having a relative carrying someone else’s child, it’s apparently legal. I’ve never heard any moral outcry over it. I think a lot of people (including straight persons) have been doing it when there was a fertility issue. I think I heard once that a mother was a surrogate for her daughter, and again, there was no big outcry. And in all cases that I’ve heard of, the child was conceived from an egg and sperm whose original owners were not biogically related to each other.

    And to be so screwed in the head and unable to accept that gays cant reproduce together

    Again, nobody has said this.

    Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 9:11 am - March 2, 2009

  22. TL, even ADD can occasionally say something that is halfway sensible by pure chance. You know the famous idea of a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters 😉

    To be clear, I disagree strongly with ADD’s position on NDT. I was going to say something about the latter, decided not to, and will change my mind and say it now. NDT deserves no less. ADD’s #66 is a LOL-fest. His attitude in the second half of it, aside from the sheer unfairness, contradicts the attitude he claims in the first half (and that I have never seen ADD practice).

    As for the rest:

    wanting your sister to have your partners baby whether by traditional means or artificial insemination is pretty f*cked in the head

    First, the sister needn’t be the one carrying the baby; she could simply be an egg donor, like a third-party egg donor except she is not be a stranger. As when AE screeched falsely about my supposedly promoting human/animal inter-genetics, he is “filling in blanks” with some pretty giant assumptions; and perhaps, as the creator of said assumptions, he might submit himself to examination ahead of his recommending it for others. Second, some infertile straight couples do it, and it results in beautiful children, related to both of the couple. That’s reality. AE is welcome to rail against it if he wants. Third,

    The child will not be related to him as a son or daughter, but as a niece or nephew.

    Translation: The child will indeed be related to him, far more than if they had gone with a stranger as the egg donor.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:17 am - March 2, 2009

  23. filtered

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:17 am - March 2, 2009

  24. A child has exactly half the DNA of each biological parent. Siblings share about half the DNA (could be more, could be less, depending on the luck of the draw). So the child would have about a quarter of the partner’s DNA.

    Yes, and another way to look at it is from the point of view of the grandparents: Exactly half of the child’s DNA will be the grandparents’ DNA, the same as if the original sibling (the one who is in the couple) had been fertile.

    ‘unable to accept that gays cant reproduce together’

    Again, nobody has said this.

    Um, not to split hairs, but it might be better to say that nobody has said gays can *procreate* together. I have said that gay couples can “reproduce” with the word “reproduce” construed more broadly than traditional procreation; that is, reproduce with the assistance of outsiders / technology, and with an understanding that even if a child is related genetically to only 1 or 0 of the parents, the child still embodies (or reproduces) the couple’s existence, hard work, love and values. I say, that is the manner of reproduction of infertile straight couples. And gay couples.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 9:27 am - March 2, 2009

  25. ILC, perhaps I should have been clearer. I am well aware what AE means when he says that two men can’t reproduce together. He is talking about procreating in the way that a man and woman can procreate with the men producing the sperm and the woman the egg and all that.

    And I understand what you mean when you say that two men can reproduce together, especially when you emphasize that it requires the same type of assistance that infertile straight couples use.

    Comment by Pat — March 2, 2009 @ 9:37 am - March 2, 2009

  26. My bottom line: If marriage is about legitimizing and/or protecting the kids… well, some gay couples have them, and many straight couples don’t… so we need to fix something, there… either expanding marriage to include gay couples with kids, or, narrowing it to exclude childless-and-infertile straight couples. If we decide to be generous and include gay couples, well, the main thing is to arrive at it democratically; which means I (for one) would accept a compromise of calling them “civil unions”, part of the topic of GPW’s post.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - March 2, 2009

  27. “His attitude in the second half of it, aside from the sheer unfairness, contradicts the attitude he claims in the first half (and that I have never seen ADD practice).”

    spare me the “unfairness” BS. You defend a person who in practically every comment attacks millions of innocent LGBT people and liberal, that is the epitome of unfairness. 2nd, it contradicts nothing because I was speaking only of NDT not conservatives in general. 3rd – I do not, have not and will not EVER condemn all of one group for the “sins” of a minority. Those who read that into my words are projecting their own warped views of those they disagree with.

    Comment by a different Dave — March 2, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - March 2, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.