Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY, HOST]: From Interfaith Alliance, this is State of Belief Radio. I'm
your host, Rev. Welton Gaddy. In 2008, social scientist David Blankenhorn
testified convincingly in support of California’s Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment
restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Having founded the influential Institute for
American Values several decades prior to that trial, Blankenhorn raised many eyebrows last
year when he publicly changed his position on marriage equality, insisting that the time
has come for removing the issue from its status as fodder in this country’s culture wars,
and instead build alliances among gay and straight couples to strengthen the institution
of marriage itself. There have been other such reversals; David
Blankenhorn, however, has gone much further than just writing, in The New York Times,
an op-ed column. In the intervening months, he has harnessed the resources of the Institute
for American Values to refine both the theoretical and the practical aspects of this position,
and assembled a distinguished list of signatories to a statement calling for a new conversation
on the subject. This approach holds great promise - great
promise - for moving the nation beyond the current stalemate on marriage; and I am very
pleased to be able to welcome David Blankenhorn now to State of Belief Radio.
Hello, David. [DAVID BLANKENHORN, GUEST]: Hey, how are you
doing today? [WG]: Listen, I am so proud of what you've
done, and we'll talk about it now - but I'm another on that list of people who changed
their minds about this whole issue, and so I'm so eager to get insights from you and
share those with our listeners. Your testimony, David, in Perry v. Schwartzenegger, the Prop
8 case, was both thoughtful and nuanced. Because I believe that many well-meaning people continue
to hold views similar to those that you presente at that time, I wonder if you would mind just
starting with a very quick summary of where you were coming from in 2008.
[DB]: Sure. I argued, in my testimony, that the main purpose of marriage in our history
as a species, really, on earth, I mean, the main reason the institution evolved and came
into being in the first place was so that society could establish what the scholars
call "filiation," and that just means: who are the parents of this child? So that we
want a society where every child who is born - our ideal is to have that child be cared
for and raised and loved by the two individuals, the mother and the father, whose *** union
produced the child. That's the ideal that the human species goes for, because it wants
to maximize good outcomes for the children, and all the societies agree that that's a
good way to do it. So "marriage" is the name we give to that arrangement, whereby every
child born has this mother and father caring for them. And so, I really testified - and
of course was challenged and there was a big discussion of it at the trial - but that was
the gist of it. Marriage was not only for that purpose - there are plenty of other purposes
of marriage - but that was the primary purpose. [WG]: Now, let me ask you one other, kind
of, background question: you had founded the Institute for American Values in 1987. Had
the Institute been addressing the issue of marriage equality during the years prior to
2012? [DB]: Well, not really, because when we started
the organization, we felt that we wanted to stay away from certain, kind of, cultural
hot-button issues. One of them was abortion - we did not want to take a position on abortion,
because we were trying to build a broad tent around the issue of marriage; and we also
wanted to stay away from issues related to homosexuality and gay rights, because again,
we wanted to build a broad base of support for marriage in civil society. So no, we didn't
get involved in it. But then after a while, particularly after
the Massachusetts case in 2004, which was a real turning point in this whole issue that
brought same-sex marriage into Massachusetts, I ended up writing a book called "The Future
of Marriage," where I did take a position against gay marriage, and then it was that
book that was the basis of my testimony at the trial in California.
[WG]: I see. Well, we're going to get into the very important concrete details of the
position in just a moment, but I'm also curious about the process of changing a fundamental
position such as this one, because momentum can be a very powerful force indeed, both
for individuals and for institutions. What did it take to point the ship in this new
direction for you? [DB]: Well, I had always been of the opinion,
from the beginning, that there were good reasons to be for gay marriage, and there were good
reasons to be against it. I always thought that - and still do. And so what caused me
to shift to give greater emphasis to the reasons to be for it - so that I thought the reasons
to be for it were stronger than the reasons to be against it, that's really the change
that happened for me - and what happened, really - I know it sounds - it may sound a
little trite to some of your listeners, but the truth is, I just got to know people. I
began in a debating mode with some of the gay and lesbian leaders; you know, I would
be in these debates around the country on gay marriage. We would argue, and argue, and
argue; but then afterwards, over time, I actually got to meet people. And one of them in particular,
a fellow named Jonathan Rauch, who wrote a book called "In Favor of Gay Marriage" - he's
a gay writer - and we became friends. I got to know him, and so we were able to talk carefully
not only about this issue, but about each other's lives, and I know it sounds a little,
maybe, trite, because we intellectuals, we like to think that we live in our heads, and
it's all about our ideas and our readings and our reflections, but the truth of it is,
that for me - I didn't... You know, I was born in 1955; I'm from Mississippi, that's
where I was born and raised, and I did not know much about gay people. I just didn't.
I just was all... You know, it was under... It was not discussed; when I was a kid, I
learned ugly names to call... I learned these ugly words, and that was about it, really.
And so getting to know people, getting to know their lives, getting to know their stories,
getting to know the idea of what it meant to them to have a partner in life - a lover
in life - that was recognized as, you know, for them to be recognized as being equal to
others - it came to mean something to me that it did not mean when it was just kind of an
intellectual thought, you know? [WG]: Absolutely.
[DB]: And so, you know, these people would say to me, "Well, did you know about such-and-such,"
a certain Supreme Court case, and I would say, "Well, no, I didn't know anything about
it." And they said, "Well, for us, this is very important, because this was a precursor
to where we are now." And I said, "Well, that case didn't have anything to do with marriage;
I'm interested in marriage." And they said, "No, you don't understand, for us, this is
a whole struggle to, kind of, enter into the American mainstream." I didn't really know
any of that. So it's not so much that I changed my mind about anything I thought about parenting
and the traditional meaning of the institution; I still believe all of that to be true, and
very, very important. But I came to an appreciation that I didn't have before that I, that me,
personally - I'm not pointing a finger at others - I was not aware. I was not aware
of the suffering going on here, and need for change. I was not as aware as I should have
been. And that's why I changed my position. [WG]: You know, David, I understand why you
think our listeners and others might think that a trite statement, and I just have to
tell you that I don't think there is anything near triteness about what you've said. Because
I believe that real change in us doesn't just happen in the head; it happens in experience.
And hat you've said about your relationship with the homosexual community - it could be
said about people trying to relate to members of another religion that they don't know.
And the real change does take place until we make ourselves vulnerable to a relationship,
and then we discover - I mean, it's one thing to debate ideas; it's another to try to debate
the value of a human being [DB]: I did not know that, really, I mean,
as well as I should have. I was not... And this taught me a lesson. Here I am, a middle
- older man, and I learned something here. And, you know, I feel that, especially for
those of us in the public eye, as you mentioned, there's a pressure to just stick with whatever
you've said previously; and there's also - we live in such a ugly, rancorous time that you're
just supposed to take a position and call the other side names and that's that. And
there's also this, kind of, what I find, what you said - it's based also in the relationship
and experience. I find that for people who have ideas, you know, you can develop a kind
of tissue of belief; a kind of tissue of doctrine or dogma or belief that stands between you
and the other person. And it kind of shields you from getting to know them as people, and
their own experience, and being able to really relate, to walk a mile in their shoes and
so forth. I don't know if you've experienced that, but sometimes your theory or your formal
- your so-called "position" on the issue - can be a barrier between you and other people.
[WG]: See, I think that what you've just done is describe the solution to the rancorous
society that we have because of diversity, and you've shown us the way in dealing with
almost any issue, how you get through that. My guest is David Blankenhorn, founder of
the Institute for American Values. We're talking about the Institute's call for moving the
gay marriage debate out of the realm of the culture wars, and engaging it in the service
of strengthening marriage as an institution. David, we've talked about the complex mechanics
of changing a position on a subject as emotionally charged as marriage, so we've covered the
"how." Now let's talk for a moment about the "why." Why a, quote, "new conversation on
marriage"? Why? [DB]: Well, because the old conversation is
at a dead end. For ten years or more now, we have been almost entirely preoccupied with
this rancorous argument over gay rights and gay marriage. And any time anybody says the
word "marriage," you can't take one more step before you're immediately embroiled in a debate
about gay marriage. So number one, we need to refocus on the institution as a whole,
and particularly since the institution is fracturing today along class lines. If you
are among the upscale Americans who have four-year college degrees - that's about 30% - the marriage
trends for that group are going pretty well. But if you are in the 60% of Americans who
have high school degrees but not four-year college degrees - that's 60% of Americans
- marriage is just deteriorating, almost evaporating before our eyes. More and more one-parent
homes; more and more breakups; serial relationships; bruised lives; you know, cramped possibilities
for thriving for many, many, many children; human suffering. And the weakening of the
family and marriage relationships in the broad middle of the country is contributing to inequality,
and it's contributing to the divisions in our society that are so painful, and so need
to be fixed. And so we need to think about that. And so the argument that I and my colleagues
are making in this new conversation - which your listeners can sign up for today to be
a part of - we're saying: let us stop arguing so much about gay vs. straight, or gay rights
vs. against gay rights; let us, gays and straights who want to strengthen the institution for
everyone, who want to leave it better off than they found it - we want to work together
to strengthen marriage. And so we're putting the culture war over gay marriage behind us,
and we are broadening the conversation to include gays and lesbians with everybody else
who want to strengthen marriage, want to focus on the broad crisis that we face. So that's
the gist of it. And we - and I'll tell you, Welton, I mean, this thing - it's been encouraging.
I mean, we're getting liberals and conservatives, gay and straight - I mean, there's a common
sense to this that I think is appealing to people.
[WG]: Well, I'm so glad to hear you say that, and I'm going to ask you again later, but
tell our listeners, if they want to get in touch with you, how to do it.
[DB]: Well, if you want to, you go to our website, it's AmericanValues.org. AmericanValues.org.
And you can sign on to our... It's only 800 words! You know, so it's short. And it's called
"A Call For a New Conversation On Marriage." And you can read it, and you can become a
signatory. And there are many distinguished Americans who have already signed this, and
there are more signing every day. And we're going to go around the country to talk about
this over the next few months; we're going to have town hall meetings and various discussions
with different leaders and people around the country. So this is going to be a serious
effort to, really, reframe the discussion, you know? And just get us to a different place,
where we can focus on strengthening marriage for all who seek it, that's another way of
saying it. [WG]: Yeah, and I think that is so important,
that people understand: not only are you challenging something that's wrong about our perspective,
you're also modeling the way to get beyond that. Because I see a kind of narrow, sectarian
doctrine, divorced from compassion, and a kind of partisan political position, again
divorced from compassion, that doesn't give people room to change. You're saying you want
good marriages for everybody. [DB]: Everybody who wants it, yes. And in
particular, you know, the kind of, almost in a humorous way, my colleagues and I have
been saying, "OK, if you're a Liberal, do you believe in strengthening marriage... Do
you believe in marriage even if the word "gay" is not in front of it? That's one way to ask
the question. [WG]: That's right.
[DB]: If you're a Conservative and you think you're pro-family, are you pro-family enough
to break bread with gay and lesbian people who are also pro-family? Are you that pro-family,
or not? And if you're gay or lesbian, are you only interested in the right of access
to the institution, or would you also like to leave the institution better off than you
found it, through your participation in it, and through your stewardship? That's also
an interesting question. And so whether you're gay or straight, whether you're liberal or
conservative, there's a opportunity here to come together and have everybody do better
than we've done, you know, in the past. Because goodness knows, you know this, Welton, I mean,
we have not treated the institution well as a society in recent decades, you know. And
of course this is all the result of heterosexual people doing so. But we've not treated the
institution well; we haven't respected it; and so that's the reframing that we're looking
at here, and a broader conversation, the bringing together of a broader group that can say,
"Let's... Let's turn that trend around. Let's turn that trend around, and leave this institution
a little bit better off ten years from now than it is now."
[WG]: Boy, I just, I mean, those are such exciting questions. To have a dialogue around
those would be incredible, and I think David, what you and your colleagues are doing, which
I totally support, is: on the one hand, you're challenging us to see if we really are importantly
focused on marriage, or just one kind of marriage; and secondly, you're offering the kind of
compassion that moves us to engage new people, and to get out of our biases and to get into
a form of loving relationships that we haven't yet tried.
[DB]: Yes. And - that's true - it's what I found that I wanted to try to do, so I'm trying
to do the same thing. [WG]: I', so glad.
[DB]: I’ve been talking with David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values.
He is aggressively working to strengthen the institution of marriage for all - how could
you be against that? - by removing the issue of gay marriage from the battlefield of the
culture wars in this country. I think David is calling our bluff!
David Blankenhorn is the author of numerous books on culture and values, including several
on the institution of marriage. In an age of entrenched partisan polarization on so
many issues, it's a heartening thing to look at some of the very real problems in our society
in an honest way, and in a hopeful way, and that's what Mr. Blankenhorn is doing. I want
to thank him for taking time to be with us today, I want to encourage you to find out
more about him. David, one more time the contact information.
[DB]: It's www.AmericanValues - that's one word - AmericanValiues.org. And you can read
the "Call For A New Conversation," sign up and get email notices of future conversations,
and we really welcome that. And thank you, Welton, for the great work that you're doing.
[WG]: Well, listen, thanks for taking time to be with us on State of Belief Radio.
[DB]: Thank you.