Stopping same-sex unions protects no one

David Blankenhorn, who heads up a think tank in New York, writes in his Sept. 19 Times Op-Ed article that because marriage is historically a means to provide children with legitimacy, it must so always remain. I do not agree that this is the sole reason for the modern institution of marriage. Nonetheless, applying Blankenhorn's argument further, should we not -- in addition to eliminating the right to marry for gays and lesbians -- also deny heterosexual couples who choose not to have children the right to wed? What about heterosexual couples who are past their childbearing years? Blankenhorn presents his self-identification as a liberal democrat as his credentials to make this argument. More likely, his argument is simply a smoke screen to strip gays and lesbians in California of their rights.

By James Overturf

September 26, 2008