David Blankenhorn Affirms ‘Equal Dignity of Homosexual Love’; ‘Gay’ Activist Jonathan Rauch Applauds

david_blankenhorn.jpg Author David Blankenhorn

By Peter LaBarbera 

David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values — who has done tremendous work in defending the institution of marriage and in making the case against “same-sex marriage” — has now proclaimed the “equal dignity of homosexual love.” This has earned him high praise from a leading homosexual “same-sex marriage” advocate, Jonathan Rauch. Watch their 3-minute video debate segment on “Bloggingheads.tv,” “Does opposing gay marriage make you a homophobe?” online here: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=386&cid=2311.

How utterly tragic is this pronouncement by one of the world’s leading marriage advocates — who should know better than to go out on limb on the homosexual issue, apparently in solidarity with his homosexual friends and associates. (Click HERE to read Princeton professor Robbie George’s review of Blankenhorn’s latest book, The Future of Marriage, in National Review.)

On what basis and authority does Blankenhorn make this astounding claim about homosexuality? He is part of a growing trend of prominent “conservatives” (a label which Blankenhorn rejects) and self-professed Christians who have decided that they disagree with what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At least Blankenhorn is honest enough to state openly that he disagrees with the Word of God — most people at his level are not, preferring to play a double-game of proclaiming their fealty to Biblical truth, reason and tradition while actually undermining them all. On page 210 of The Future of Marriage, Blankenhorn writes:

“I am a Christian, I take the Bible seriously, and I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I disagree with the Bible on this point. Or if you’ll permit me, I believe that Jesus’ teachings are inconsistent with the idea that today in the United States we should judge people as blameworthy just for being gay or lesbian.”

That puts Blankenhorn’s latest statements on homosexual “love” in perspective. Let’s hope and pray that he returns to truth on this issue, and that his friend Jonathan Rausch leaves homosexuality behind.

Some observations:

  1. If there’s equal dignity in homosexual “love,” and equal worth in homosexual relationships, as Blankenhorn says, why not let “gays” get married? This is the Catch-22 for compromisers: the more accepted homosexuality becomes — and the more homosexual relationships are accorded the dignity they do not deserve — the more likely it is that marriage will be radically redefined to accommodate them. Marriage defenders who take the pro-homosexuality bait (or embrace “civil unions”) are shooting themselves in the foot because this plays right into the homosexual movement’s spurious “separate-but-equal” argument — i.e., that like Blacks decades ago, the only reason homosexual relationships are being treated differently is societal prejudice;
  2. More than anything else, approval is what homosexuals and “gay” apologists yearn for — people to tell them their homosexuality is OK and their same-sex behavior is not a sin. It’s better when it comes from Christians, and best from self-described Christian, pro-family leaders;
  3. Conversely, you get no praise from the media, pundits and the intellectual class (including many “conservatives”) these days by standing your ground, especially when you defend ex-“gays” like Charlene Cothran, who give the lie to the notion of permanent, innate homosexual (GLBT) “identities”;
  4. Truth is, there is NO dignity in homosexual acts (of course, neither is there in straight perversions), and I’d bet in his heart Blankenhorn knows this. Homosexual sodomies are so unnatural and repulsive — i.e., so plainly wrong — that we can hardly discuss them in debates because it TURNS OUR OWN PEOPLE OFF. (Could this extreme distaste for even mentioning homo-sexual behavior be a sign that the entire “gay rights” movement is misguided?) Even images of lesbian sex were once relegated to straight pornography. This is wrong behavior — always: we are correct to ask the discomforting question: how would two homosexual men “consummate their gay marriage”? Keeping the issue abstract (“love”) allows Blankenhorn and fellow homosexuality-affirming apologists to perpetuate the ahistorical sophistry that homosexuality is somehow noble and morally equivalent to real love between man and woman, joined together as husband and wife.
  5. There is a danger in endless dialogue with homosexual activists: it seems they always get the better of the dialogue. Former homosexual Alan Medinger of Regeneration Ministries wrote a good article a few years ago on how there is no need for church “debates” on homosexuality: God’s position is clear. So why are Christians and conservatives so quick to capitulate? Liberal pressure to be politically correct is a big part of the reason, to be sure, but maybe it’s also because we have less personally invested in the outcome than the other side (or so we think). A frowning Rep. Barney Frank once told me after refusing to shake my hand after we had both appeared on a National Public Radio talk show program, “It’s personal to me.” Well, not having the government force us to violate our beliefs by affirming and/or subsidizing a destructive lifestyle is “personal” to us, too, Mr. Frank;
  6. In our secular-dominated world, “non-judgmental” public policy intellectuals like Blankenhorn — or Christian capitulators like “gay marriage” advocate Peggy Campolo (wife of Tony) — often get plaudits while theologically faithful guys like Rob Gagnon labor largely in obscurity. (Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, has a hard time even finding pro-homosexual theologians to debate him.) Defending the Word of God’s clear teachings on homosexuality presently may be a lonely task, but we must do it;
  7. It makes no logical sense to divorce the fight against “same-sex marriage” — a homosexual activist concoction — from homosexuality itself. The battle over radically redefining marriage is the mere culmination of decades of homosexual activism, combined with the confusion and chaos wrought by the Sexual Revolution of the ’60s and ’70s. Giving today’s sexual and gender revolutionaries a pass on such a core tenet as the morality of homosexuality saps energy from the traditionalists, who did not start this values war but are only trying to defend God’s natural order against those who would cast it aside;
  8. Blankenhorn’s foolishly has joined the multitudes embracing “civil unions” as an acceptable compromise on the “same-sex marriage” issue. So now the debate is reduced to this: deciding what we will call government-endorsed homosexual unions? Ten years ago, such a “compromise” — which advances nearly the entire homosexual activist agenda — would be unthinkable. Legalized “civil unions” undermine marriage and freedom in the same ways that “same-sex marriage” does: by rewarding immoral behavior; advancing the dubious cause of homosexual adoption; expanding state power to force moral-minded citizens and business owners to subsidize aberrant lifestyles; and acting as a stepping stone to full “same-sex marriage.” And the liberal media call them “marriage” anyway! In other words, “civil unions” are a Neville Chamberlain-esque compromise in this culture war; 
  9. Note in the video debate how Rauch equates “homophobia” with being “anti-gay.” Hence the artificial construct of “homophobia” — which once was used to describe irrational “fear” of homosexuals — has morphed into being merely opposed to homosexual behavior itself. How convenient for cultural elites who like to smear people of faith as bigots;
  10. Now read the written online comments from homosexual advocates that followed the Blankenhorn-Rausch video debate: it’s telling that despite Blankenhorn’s surrender on homosexual “love,” he gets lambasted as a “homophobe” because he opposes “same-sex marriage.” Appeasement never works with this crowd;
  11. Jonathan Rauch needs to apply his significant brain power to a study on the meaning of “conservative.” If conservatives are not conserving the age-old, Judeo-Christian sexual and marital ethic — which has served mankind well and which cannot include the normalization of same-sex perversion (see Gagnon) — then they are not real “conservatives.” Conservative historian and essayist Russell Kirk, praising Edmund Burke in The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, wrote: “No one ever expressed more persuasively the impotence of human reason before divine mystery, or the necessity for cheerful obedience to the moral order….” But Rauch and fellow “gay” polemicists, no matter how well-meaning, work day and night to subvert the moral order — for if a society discards and redefines God’s magnificent design of male and female as the foundation of marriage and family, what “order” remains? What other foundational truths are safe? In that sense, “gay conservative” is an oxymoron, although of course homosexuals can hold conservative opinions on a myriad of issues. Rauch has it 180 degrees backwards: there is no “moral challenge” caused by Blankenhorn’s expedient embrace of homosexuality. The true “moral challenge” is to people of faith and genuine conservatives: will they stand tall against the elite- and media-driven push to normalize unhealthy, wrong and changeable sexual behaviors that are at war with the wonderful divine order established by our Creator?

OK, enough pontificating. Now I’m going to go revise my Bible to incorporate Blankenhorn’s wisdom on the equality and dignity of homosexual “love.” Here’s the piece by Rauch with emphasis added:

The Latest from Independent Gay Forum – CultureWatch  
“The Equal Dignity of Homosexual Love”

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 12:00 AM CDT

by Jonathan Rauch

Not what you expected a gay marriage opponent to proclaim? Me, either. In the gay marriage debate, David Blankenhorn’s statement that “I believe in the equal dignity of homosexual love” represents something of a breakthrough. I heard him say it to a conservative Washington audience in the spring (they seemed taken aback), and now it’s online right here, in this Bloggingheads debate.

Blankenhorn goes on, here, to come out in favor of civil unions that would be just like marriage—including federal recognition—except that they would neither add to nor subtract from the existing parenting rights of same-sex couples. This, in Blankenhorn’s view, would do 90 percent of what gay couples want without affecting child-rearing laws throughout the country.

Legal equality it ain’t. From my point of view, of course, marriage is a clear first choice. On the other hand, Blankenhorn’s civil unions would be vastly better than what we have now in 49 states, particularly if federally recognized, and battles over parenting rights could be fought another day.

Not least, Blankenhorn’s embrace of civil unions issues an implicit moral challenge to the many, many SSM opponents who take a “Let them eat cake” toward the welfare of gay couples by being against SSM but not for anything else. He’s implicitly saying, “Even from a pro-traditional-family perspective, we can protect the interests of children and still do a whole lot for gay couples—and we should.” However one feels about this idea, it deserves a wide and respectful hearing, especially from conservatives.

Let’s see if any conservatives rise to the challenge.

Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans For Truth
P.O. Box 340743
Columbus, OH 43234

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'