Expect to see a lot of debate surrounding the thesis about gay marriage proffered in this Weekly Standard article by David Blankenhorn, who condenses the arguments made in his forthcoming book, The Future of Marriage. As Andrew points out, Blankenhorn abandons the shoddy social science offered by Stanley Kurtz that purports to show how acceptance of gay marriage ruins traditional marriage. Blankenhorn uses two international surveys of countries that recognize and don't recognize gay marriages (or civil unions) and attempts to show a correlation between acceptance of gay unions and a lack of support for traditional marriage. In other words, people in liberal, democratic Western European countries are more likely to believe that, among other things, traditioanl gender roles are sexist and that marriage is an outdated institution. He writes:

The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.

Analyzing his data will be a long and difficult task for bloggers, et al (for a good, preliminary debunking, read my friend Dale Carpenter). But here's just an initial question on my part, based on the countries surveyed: do American conservatives really want to hold up places like China, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia as places of societal virtue? Looks like Dinesh D'Souza may actually gain back some of his friends on the right. --James Kirchick