"I am a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same sex marriage."

So says David Blankenhorn in the opening lines of this forceful L.A. Times Op-Ed, entitled "Protecting marriage to protect children."

Here are the opening paragraphs:

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage. But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

So, maybe this is the best situation. But many children are not raised in a loving, monogamous, intact two-biological-parent home. What, then, is the difference between homosexual marriage and single-parent or blended family homes?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one [just like children brought into other alternate family models]. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

Basically, most alternate family models acknowledge that a natural family would have been ideal, and regret that circumstances prevented them from following that tried and true course. Pro-homosexual marriages, however, do not acknowledge this deficit, but believe their situation carries equal benefit to children.

Clearly, this pro-gay, anti-gay marriage viewpoint is not going to be looked upon kindly by many (see, e.g., the 70+ online comments). In fact, most will see Blankenhorn's actions as politically treasonous, denying him the right to be a "liberal Democrat." Just like Obama is not really black, Lieberman is not really a Democract, Bush is not small government (one with which I agree). Regardless of the credibility of his choice of labels, though, Blankenhorn says these are the sorts of conversations that must be had in order to adequately discuss any kind of marriage revision. Unfortunately, these are also the sorts of conversations which will be cut short by branding them as hate-mongering, bigoted and homophobic.

[HT: Thabiti Anyabwile]