Skip to comments.Same-sex marriage can help save the institution
Posted on 01/30/2013 8:14:51 AM PST by Belteshazzar
More than perhaps anyone else in America, David Blankenhorn personifies the struggle so many have experienced over same-sex marriage.
First he was agnostic, then he was against it, now hes for it.
306 Comments Weigh InCorrections?
Personal Post Kathleen Parker
Parker writes a twice-weekly column on politics and culture. Archive FacebookE-mailRSS You may also like...
Michael Gerson Does Obama want an immigration deal?
Jennifer Rubin One more like that and it's a 'recession'
This is to say that Blankenhorn a long-standing opponent of same-sex marriage has shifted his energies to saving the institution of marriage, regardless of whom one chooses as a mate.
If youre unfamiliar with Blankenhorn, it is because he hasnt been barking his positions on television the way so many ideologues do. And this may be because he is not strictly an ideologue but one of those rare people who agonize in search of the right thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That's like saying assisted suicide can help cure cancer.
Worth repeating - and true.
What next, she’ll support consanguinity in order to “strengthen families?”
Blankenhorn was mercilessly demonized by homo-nazis for testifying for the defense of Prop 8 until he could take no more. He has a lot of “penance” to do before the perverts will be placated, though.
No wonder most all of the scheduled trial witnesses dropped out. Who wants to deal with the homo-mafia?
These people want more Jerry Sanduskys for Boy Scout leaders...
A few Muslim countries still stone homosexuals to death... That does not bother me.
There is a difference between polygyny and polyandry.
But, just for the sake of argument, polyandry and polygyny are heterosexual and produce children.
There is no logical rationale for homosexual monogamy, babies are not born that way.
“Its amusing that the Left would have become so attached to marriage now since they spent to many decades trying to kill it.”
They haven’t changed their intention. Just their tactics. Instead of open destruction of it they’ll just define it out of having any meaningful definition.
Indeed. I thought their argument was “how does redefining marriage affect your marriage?” So it’s gone from “having no effect” to being its “savior”? Talk about saying anything and everything to get what one wants whether it’s consistent or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.