Comments on: Maggie Gallagher on David Blankenhorn

By: Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:55:54 +0000

It is becoming increasingly clear that aggressive, narcissistic strategies are enveloping some who are political advocates for same-sex “marriage.” The famous Dr. Robert Spitzer was harassed to such an extent after he published a journal article saying that gays and lesbians can change their orientation that he just caved into the pressure. This is now well-documented in MercatorNet.com here: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes

Another famous writer, David Blannkenhorn, who opposed same-sex “marriage” has now done the same as Dr. Spitzer. He has caved in, saying that he will no longer stand by his earlier, published views that same-sex “marriage” is actually no marriage at all. He, like Dr. Spitzer, was harassed after he became a highly public figure in the Proposition 8 case in California. The harassment started soon after that and harmed him. The details of this harassment can be found in Public Discourse here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5759

Those who disagree with the political advocacy for same-sex “marriage” are and will continue to experience inhumane harassment. The pattern is clear. Such a pattern is highly narcissistic—get what you want or attack until you do.

Readers do you wish to hand over the children of America to those who will harass to the point of breaking a person? It is time to take a stand for the sake of the children and and the culture by preventing the redefinition of marriage.

By: Gail Finke

Gail Finke — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:53:40 +0000

What a powerful essay. I do see the man’s point: If you have lost a debate, it’s better to salvage what you can and go on. I don’t think the debate is lost, though, and I think nothing much can or will be salvaged if it is lost in the future. People so intent upon destroying the institution of marriage that they will define it out of existence are not likely to turn around and agree that people ought to be engaged in that meaningless institution before having sexual relations, or ought to be sure they have made their meaningless contract (or whatever they decide to call it) before they have children. I’m very sorry he’s made this decision. I think, in his effort to salvage what he thinks is left of marriage, he has inadvertantly thrown in his lot with those trying their best to ensure that nothing will be left.

By: Frank Miller

Frank Miller — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:51:04 +0000

David Blanckenhorns’ rationale for his change in opinion is compelling but I don’t think by eroding the definition of marriage by extending what means will offer any coordinate outcome to secruing strong family structure for future children. Gay folks will have a high percentage of divorces and or have children on their own, discard them when no wanted as easily as straights. I don’t get the connection.
By legitimizing another version of what marriage means we only work our way for it to mean anything or in reality nothing at all.