Rob Portman: I’ve changed my mind and support gay marriage now

posted at 11:21 am on March 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

Interesting for many reasons. Timing: He’s dropping this during CPAC, when political media is focused on competing factions within conservative thought, and shortly before the Supreme Court takes up a landmark case on Prop 8 and DOMA. Enthusiasm: He didn’t casually mention this during a standard Q&A with a reporter. He called three Ohio journalists to his office for the announcement, granted CNN an on-camera interview, and published an op-ed in today’s Columbus Dispatch. He’s really throwing some weight behind it. Prominence: Portman was, of course, a shortlister for VP and is the lone GOP senator from America’s ultimate swing state. More than that, he’s the first sitting Republican member of the Senate to endorse legalizing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court amicus brief filed by pro-gay-marriage Republicans a few weeks ago was conspicuous for its lack of any big-name incumbents as signatories. Portman’s a big name.

Why’d he switch? Like Dick Cheney, whom Portman met with to discuss this, his view changed when he found out someone in his family is gay:

Portman said his own evolution on the issue began in 2011, when [his son] Will, then a freshman at Yale University, made a stunning revelation.

“Will … came to Jane and me and announced that he was gay, that it was not a choice. It was who he is and he had been that way since he could remember,” Portman recalled of the conversation. “Jane and I were both surprised, very surprised, but also very supportive of him. Our reaction was not about policy or positions. It was about him as a son and letting him know we were 110 percent supportive of him.”

His son’s homosexuality “allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective, and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot,” Portman said. He said he wants Will to have the same chance at an enduring relationship, “like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”…

Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his faith.

But “the overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible . . . and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker . . . that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue,” he said.

He says he told the Romney camp about his son last year when he was vetted for VP and that they told him it was no problem. Imagine, though, putting Portman on the ticket and then having news break that the vice presidential nominee, who once voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, has a gay son. The media’s coverage of Portman for the rest of the campaign would have been filtered through the issue of SSM and Romney surely knew it. Is that something he would have wanted given his intense messaging emphasis on the economy?

Mollie Hemingway makes a fair point, too:

Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn’t be changed — but it shouldn’t hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator’s son, should it?

What if a conservative senator said, “I’m reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren’t.”

One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It’s the Oprahfication of political philosophy.

Yeah, I’m loath to scold the guy for his reasoning given that I agree with him and that he’s taking on a bit of political risk in doing this, but why did he need his son to come out to get him to look at this issue from the perspective of someone who’s gay? He’s been a professional legislator for years; he’s supposed to consider all sides of an issue when deciding which policy to support. That’s a surprisingly parochial approach to a national debate that’s been rolling around for a solid decade now. Makes me wonder if his feelings on the subject really did change recently or if he’s always quietly been open to gay marriage but only felt politically safe to announce it once he discovered his son’s orientation. Conservative primary voters may be less likely to hold it against him if they think it’s a decision driven by fatherly love for his son.

Anyway, who’s next? The real significance of Portman endorsing SSM is that it gives political cover to other GOP incumbents who might secretly agree with him to speak up too. Republicans from solidly red states will remain opposed but there are plenty of purple-state possibilities. Susan Collins seems like a given. Murkowski can probably get away with it in Alaska. Mark Kirk would pay no heavy penalty in Illinois. Maybe Kelly Ayotte too, or do her national ambitions prevent that (for now)? There’ll be more.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 11

Publicly supporting his gay son is one thing. Changing your beliefs and turning your back on religious teachings are another.

I respect his opinion, but his legislative powers should remain true to marriage being between a man and a woman.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM

So for all of you whom voted and contributed for what I stood for yesterday… tough.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

A welcomed development, imo. The cause of his switch is somewhat irrelevant, though.

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM

If there was such a universal support for “gay marriage”, 30 states would not have voted against it. With all the shouting and propaganda push from the protagonists, you would think we were talking about 300% of America’s population instead of 3%. And, only a small percentage of that 3% want to get “married”. This isn’t about homosexual “love”, it is about political leverage and achieving of normalcy for a deviant behavior through changing the meaning of a word.

There will be no “groundswell of support” for Portman.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Maybe the religious teachings are simply wrong on this?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

If he found out his daughter was living in sin with a guy would he change is views on shacking up?

Kjeil on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Publicly supporting his gay son is one thing. Changing your beliefs and turning your back on religious teachings are another.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM

When reality (his son) is presented – most people realize that gay people are no threat to their own belief system or the way we manage our own lives and family – and that equal rights are just that – equal.

Once again – as in this case – first hand experience trumps second hand beliefs.

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

This is kind of meh to me.
Unless he says that the Federal government should enact a law supporting “gay marriage”.

22044 on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Portman always looked like a switch hitter to me.

VegasRick on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

This isn’t about homosexual “love”, it is about political leverage and achieving of normalcy for a deviant behavior through changing the meaning of a word.

Blablahblahblah.

Time to join the 21st century I’m afraid.

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Maybe the religious teachings are simply wrong on this?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Bold statement – for too many – this thought is inconceivable.

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Who?

Socratease on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Maybe the religious teachings are simply wrong on this?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

No, Brutus. They’re not. Hawkdriver says “Hi”.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

This isn’t about homosexual “love”, it is about political leverage and achieving of normalcy for a deviant behavior through changing the meaning of a word.

Oh, and if one of your kids was gay, I doubt you’d be calling him or her “deviant.”

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

“Those are my principles and if you don’t like those… I have others.”

————————..Groucho Marx

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Blablahblahblah.

Time to join the 21st century I’m afraid.

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Truth is timeless, jackwagon.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

He said he wants Will to have the same chance at an enduring relationship, “like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”…

Dude. Marriage does not cause an enduring relationship. It’s the other way around.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Truth is timeless, jackwagon.

What does that even mean?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I don’t understand the “It’s not a choice, I was born with it” argument. Does that mean we should just except and even promte dyslexia? I’m pretty sure children with cleft palates didn’t choose that but rather were born with it. While I don’t think it’s merely a choice, saying your born that way doesn’t justify anything else. I can see a criminal case in court going something like this, “The defendant is charged with raping, killing and eating 34 children, how do you plead?”
“Born with it, your honor”
“Oh, so it wasn’t a choice?”
“No sir!”
“Very well, case dismissed.”

Flange on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Oh, and if one of your kids was gay, I doubt you’d be calling him or her “deviant.”

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

My niece is, jackwagon. And, I love her very much. However, until Liberals took over the Socialogy Department in Universities, it was listed as a deviant behavior.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Once again – as in this case – first hand experience trumps second hand beliefs.

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I have an Uncle who is Gay.

One of my best friends from High School is Gay.

When they told me they were gay, I didn’t suddenly change my beliefs, nor did I think they should be able to marry another of their own sex.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

What a shocker: a Romney advisor goes weak-kneed because he learns that his son is gay. What a pitiful excuse for changing a moral viewpoint.

I say kill this party if this is where we are going. Who needs demonrat light?

Nemesis of Jihad on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

By their fruits ye shall know them.

tommyboy on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

When will people see reason that homosexual marriage is not a good thing. Probably never, seeing as we no longer teach reason and critical thinking skills in our schools. Our entire populace in the Western world has been in an education system intent on dumbing down the people.

These are the last years of a culture of reason & tradition. Enjoy is while you can, Conservatives. Once it is gone, it’s gone forever.

Politiceaux on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

“Will … came to Jane and me and announced that he was gay, that it was not a choice. It was who he is and he had been that way since he could remember,” Portman recalled of the conversation.

Great. You have a gay son. Good for you. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage needs to be redefined out of existence.

Your kid’s gay and you’re a douche. Great family, there …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

What does that even mean?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

It’s above your paygrade.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Maybe the religious teachings are simply wrong on this?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Self-discipline is haaaaard. More wine. Nero has decreed it.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Bold statement – for too many – this thought is inconceivable.

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Bolder statement:

Maybe accepting everything your adult child does as normal to the extent it changes your own beliefs isn’t really fatherly love. Fatherly love would be to tell them that you love them but do not support what they are doing because of its moral implications.

“Go and sin no more” was Jesus’ advice to others from HIS Father.

BKennedy on March 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I guess we’re lucky Portman didn’t find out that his kid’s a thief.

That’s for next year, I guess …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Altering your political philosophy based on personal expediency simply is not principled.My previous belief inconveniences a family member, therefore I change my belief? Going to rewrite the Bible to your convenience as well?

michaelo on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

With the country hurtling toward financial ruin and a long overdue debate about the proper role and size of government, is gay marriage really a hill worth dying on? Don’t we have anything better to talk about?

Nope, I guess not.

I agree with Allah that Portman’s rationale for the change is suspect (and raises serious questions about his decision-making process), but come on….I really don’t give a rat’s posterior about the issue itself. Let the states allow or disallow it according to what their voters want. And if that means you have to recognize a gay marriage as valid because it was performed in another state, well tough titty.

DRayRaven on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Jane Portman can fire her interior decorator.

BHO Jonestown on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Who cares if hes for gay marriage? I personally am not, but if a repub happens to be, its not a deal breaker for me.

Jack_Burton on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

I was suggested on another message board that Portman, himself, might be gay and that he’s being blackmailed.

eaglescout_1998 on March 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Portman always looked like a switch hitter to me.

VegasRick on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

I’d put it more he’s a bit metrosexual, soft-spoken, sensitive, good-looking, laid-back, thin, outdoorsy. He was my Congressman for years and I never have understood who he is as a person, he’s kind of self-effacing, quiet. I mean, he seems very decent and I thought he was some kind of conservative.

Yes, some men have had a same-sex attraction since they were little boys. But, to be blunt and gross about it, since that’s what we do here, do we really want to enshrine sodomy in a honored place in our culture?

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Sentimental…Thy name is Rob Portman

sen·ti·men·tal
1
a : marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism
b : resulting from feeling rather than reason or thought
2
: having an excess of sentiment or sensibility

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The kid goes to Yale. No doubt he’s gay. I bet he’s been date-raped, too.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

He was NEVER a Conservative

He was NEVER a Republican

He has NEVER been ANYTHING but a Democrat

He has NEVER been ANYTHING but a LIBERAL

And SO was Romney ans ALL OF HIS MINIONS!!

THAT is why The Media, including “The Conservative Media” and Especially THIS BLOG and Allahpundit told Lie After Lie After Lie and LIE about these people trying to creat the PRETENSE that they were “severly conservative”

THAT IS WHY THEY LOST!!

williamg on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

He said he wants Will to have the same chance at an enduring relationship, “like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”…

Why can’t he have the same chance at a long term relationship without redefining marriage? It’s Portman’s unique relationship with Jane that produced this son. Way to go and use him as a prop.

monalisa on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Maybe accepting everything your adult child does as normal to the extent it changes your own beliefs isn’t really fatherly love. Fatherly love would be to tell them that you love them but do not support what they are doing because of its moral implications.

“Go and sin no more” was Jesus’ advice to others from HIS Father.

BKennedy

What are the “moral” implications? For you and your family? Please do tell.

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

This “issue” bugs the crap out of me. I don’t care about any politicians’ opinion on “gay marriage”. Why is this a federal issue?

Political leverage and power, as usual. It Patrick wants a committed legal relationship with Patrick, let them, give them a license, whatever. We have significantly more important issues. Call it a Gay Marriage License and a Gay Divorce and move on.

ORconservative on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

LOL. I remember the day after Obama was reelected and a female physician colleague just said (sigh) “We’ll never win again until we get out the anti-gay and anti-Hispanic goons.”

Marcus on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

THAT is why The Media, including “The Conservative Media” and Especially THIS BLOG and Allahpundit told Lie After Lie After Lie and LIE about these people trying to creat the PRETENSE that they were “severly conservative”

Go somewhere else then. Better yet, start your own blog.

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Take Religion out of it.

Peeenis’s go into Vaginaas.

That is their function. It’s Nature’s purpose. Procreate.

Every Gay person is a product of Peenis-Vaginaa contact.

Try to argue otherwise.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Welcome to the right side of history, Mr. Senator.

SnarkVader on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

With the country hurtling toward financial ruin and a long overdue debate about the proper role and size of government, is gay marriage really a hill worth dying on? Don’t we have anything better to talk about?

DRayRaven on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

The role of the family in society is a cornerstone of conservative thought. Gay marriage is a pretty significant social change. There are few places in the nation where it truly has majority support. Therefore it’s a) an important topic where b) an unpopular solution seems to be determined to force itself on people who don’t want it.

Yeah, I’d say it’s worth chatting about now and then.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

What are the “moral” implications? For you and your family? Please do tell.
lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

A decadent, debased reprobate culture for starters.

tommyboy on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

The kid goes to Yale. No doubt he’s gay.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Ayeah, either you’re a flaming libtard at the Ivy Leagues or you ‘unexpectedly’ fail classes and have no friends.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM

If he found out his daughter was living in sin with a guy would he change is views on shacking up?

Kjeil on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Bastardy…It’s what’s for breakfast

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Senator Portman,

I changed my mind – I won’t be voting for you when you come up for reelection.

jackal40 on March 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Call it a Gay Marriage License and a Gay Divorce and move on.

ORconservative on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

The CA case heading to the supreme court concerns a California law that gives gay couples exactly the same rights as traditional couples. Since it’s not actually called “marriage”, it’s not good enough.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his faith.

Well, good thing he sh*t-canned those in favor of a more contemporary, pragmatic view then. Nothing better than a foundational belief that’s disposable.

somewhatconcerned on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Altering your political philosophy based on personal expediency simply is not principled.

michaelo on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

This was my attitude about Cheney’s position as well. He changes his policy positions because his daughter is a lesbian? People who make laws shouldn’t make it about themselves. Laws should be based on objective arguments, not on feelings or subjective experience.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

“I’ve changed my mind…

…I mean, even our great President has seen the zeitgeist, right?
Hey, we watch Glee, too.
In fact, that one guy is kinda cute…”

itsnotaboutme on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

The kid goes to Yale. No doubt he’s gay.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Yale has its share of gay kids, true, but this is a gross overgeneralization.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Why’d he switch? Like Dick Cheney, whom Portman met with to discuss this, his view changed when he found out someone in his family is gay:

So this is about him, right? Presumably his old position was based on the principles attached to traditional marriage and the role of traditional marriage in society. But his kid comes out of the closet and suddenly there is a rainbow flag in front of the Portman home? I personally find this kind of conversion far more offensive than the rat-eared wonder’s evolution which we all knew was a sham from the very beginning.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

…I have gay friends…they support civil unions…none are crying out for ‘marriage’…why is that?

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

But “the overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible . . . and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker”

Pathetically weak. Sure, take just the love and compassion out of the bible and the fact that we’re all created by our maker … and you can justify anything. You could justify giving a murderer a 1 year sentence instead of the 20 she/he earned. That’s just the beginning. Aren’t we taught that we’re given boundaries by are earthly parents because they have love us and have compassion for us? Doesn’t the same go for our heavenly father? Just barf. Give me an intellectually sound justification, please.

It’s this that bothers me about Portman or anyone else who goes that route. Do they think we’re stupid?

LetsBfrank on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I know, but at some point the issue is no longer an issue, which would be the case in CA, and just say no.
Portman needs to STFU in my perfect world and concentrate on something important. This is not it.

ORconservative on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Good for Sen. Portman. And can we end with the non sequitur’s, please? Comparing birth defects to homosexuality in defense of your “so what if you’re born that way” illogical pretense is offensive.

youknowit on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

What part of “you work for us not your kid” does this politician not understand?

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Yale has its share of gay kids, true, but this is a gross overgeneralization.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

What exactly is Yale’s share of gay kids? 50? 100? More?

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

LOL. I remember the day after Obama was reelected and a female physician colleague just said (sigh) “We’ll never win again until we get out the anti-gay and anti-Hispanic goons.”

Marcus on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

This is one issue that is a losing one for Republicans.. not shocking.

As to a Republican who might come out in favor of gay marriage, Kirk is probably a given.

Illinidiva on March 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

What exactly is Yale’s share of gay kids? 50? 100? More?

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM

No clue. I knew many.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

…I have gay friends…they support civil unions…none are crying out for ‘marriage’…why is that?

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Civil unions and gay marriage are the same thing. The wording is just different.

Illinidiva on March 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Altering your political philosophy based on personal expediency simply is not principled.

michaelo on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

This was my attitude about Cheney’s position as well. He changes his policy positions because his daughter is a lesbian? People who make laws shouldn’t make it about themselves. Laws should be based on objective arguments, not on feelings or subjective experience.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Exactly. Why would any of the people championing this bozo for “being on the right side of history” or whatever, want him to even hold elected office? You would champion someone whose PRINCIPLED views are up for grabs to the heartiest high-fiver?

somewhatconcerned on March 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Portman’s son has the right to Marry Any woman he wants.

If he doesn’t use that right, it’s his own fault.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Civil unions and gay marriage are the same thing. The wording is just different.

Illinidiva on March 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM

If this was true there would be no prop 8 case.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

The kid goes to Yale. No doubt he’s gay.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Yale has its share of gay kids, true, but this is a gross overgeneralization.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Yale is lost…

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/04/sex-weekend-examines-sexual-culture/

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

That’s everyone though, not just the gay kids. ;)

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Thou Shalt Never Change Thy Mind.

Good Lt on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Y’all can come kicking and screaming, but the direction of history and this country is clear.

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

…I have gay friends…they support civil unions…none are crying out for ‘marriage’…why is that?

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

It’s only the militant gay community who cares, the rest realize “why in the hell would I get married?”.

Tater Salad on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

That’s what Caligula said. And, his horse agreed.

kingsjester on March 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Rob Portman: I’ve decided to stop lying to my constituents about where I stand on gay marriage.

Pork-Chop on March 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM

If his kid was straight, he wouldn’t have changed his mind.

mrscullen on March 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Y’all can come kicking and screaming, but the direction of history and this country is clear.
stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

No thanks. I don’t want sodom here. National Divorce, all the way.

nobar on March 15, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Y’all can come kicking and screaming, but the direction of history and this country is clear.

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

What was that business about “standing athwart history, yelling ‘stop!’?” That’s what cons are here for, to slow down the destructive impulses of do-gooders.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:51 AM

But “the overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible . . . and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker”

Pathetically weak. Sure, take just the love and compassion out of the bible and the fact that we’re all created by our maker … and you can justify anything. [...]

It’s this that bothers me about Portman or anyone else who goes that route. Do they think we’re stupid?

LetsBfrank on March 15, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Compassion should inform public policy, but shouldn’t be the basis for it. Government “compassion” is enforced by throwing you into jail if you don’t comply. And if you resist when they arrest you, they shoot you in the head. These are just facts. How compassionate is that? If everyone loved each other unconditionally, we wouldn’t need any government at all.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 11:51 AM

If this was true there would be no prop 8 case.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

The only reason there is a Prop 8 case is that the judge in CA who ruled on it was a practicing homosexual whose ruling was one of the most disgusting attacks on Christian doctrine I’ve ever read. The whole case should have been re-heard simply because of this dastardly bastard’s bias and hatred.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

but the direction of history and this country is clear.

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Towards Sodom or Gomorrah?

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

This was my attitude about Cheney’s position as well. He changes his policy positions because his daughter is a lesbian? People who make laws shouldn’t make it about themselves. Laws should be based on objective arguments, not on feelings or subjective experience.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I really don’t understand this view, to be honest. Pretty much everyone’s ideology has some input based on their life experiences. George McGovern had a bit of a change of heart after he got out of politics, went into business and found how hard the policies he’d been pushing made it to succeed in the business world.

I’m not sure how suddenly being personally exposed to the difficulties gay people face in this country is markedly different or somehow illegitimate.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

I don’t understand the “It’s not a choice, I was born with it” argument. Does that mean we should just except and even promte dyslexia? I’m pretty sure children with cleft palates didn’t choose that but rather were born with it. While I don’t think it’s merely a choice, saying your born that way doesn’t justify anything else. I can see a criminal case in court going something like this, “The defendant is charged with raping, killing and eating 34 children, how do you plead?”
“Born with it, your honor”
“Oh, so it wasn’t a choice?”
“No sir!”
“Very well, case dismissed.”

Flange on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Ehemmmm….

I’m dyslexic…and I wouldn’t recommend it…

Carry on.

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Oh, and if one of your kids was gay, I doubt you’d be calling him or her “deviant.”

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

.
Why wouldn’t someone try to correct behavior regardless of where it arises?

I guess you’re also for situational ethics.

LincolntheHun on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Portman’s statement is irrational.

Perhaps he’s traumatized and intimidated by his son’s recent admissions of his behavior, who can say (but it seems a likely reaction especially after reading his noncoherent, rambling, bizarre statement about his ‘conclusion’).

He also refers to the “Bible’s” numerous mentions of “love” as some basis for his irrational conclusion, which is part of his irrationality because no where in the Bible does it say that, based upon a child’s actions, a father should abandon his beliefs, particularly when he claims to believe in what Portman has.

Which also points out the weakness if not the artificiality of Portman’s beliefs to begin with.

Best to see the false-leaders than to continue to follow them assuming they’re truthful.

In Portman’s case, he sounds as if he’s emotionally disturbed and it’s affected his ability to put together rational thought.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Funny that his emotions are the driving factor on whether something is good or not. What if his son came out and said he was addicted to crack and that he was always addicted to crack… Would he then be pro legalization? I am guessing one of his daughters has the potential to be sexually attracted to the family dog, no? So, can we have legalized bestiality? I hear there is opportunity for his wife to be attracted to the gardener, who happens to be maybe be an illegal alien, so can she have two husbands and we should give a path to citizenship for illegal aliens? One of his grandsons might possibly…

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Thou Shalt Never Change Thy Mind.

Good Lt on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

.
Present an actual fact and not feeelings or personal anecdotes and the situation might change.

LincolntheHun on March 15, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

I see no reason why a judge cannot be a “practicing homosexual”. However, I have a problem with a judge of any orientation who believes: “Once we decide what the constitution says, it is unconstitutional for you peons to try to reverse it through amendment.”

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Thou Shalt Never Change Thy Mind.

Good Lt on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Thine Rules are not Flexible

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Oh, and if one of your kids was gay, I doubt you’d be calling him or her “deviant.”

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I would, and they would know my position on it long before they ever imagined to come out. I would tell them and teach them how that lifestyle is a degradation of life, and as a Christian ensure they understand that living that lifestyle automatically prevents Jesus from being able to forgive their sins.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

When they told me they were gay, I didn’t suddenly change my beliefs, nor did I think they should be able to marry another of their own sex.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Fair enough – honest comment

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Y’all can come kicking and screaming, but the direction of history and this country is clear.

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Does this right side of history bandwagon argument apply to Islam?

argumentum ad populum

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world…should we all jump on the side of History and join Mohammedians?

workingclass artist on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Maybe the religious teachings are simply wrong on this?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Religious teachings on it are rather ambiguous.

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Also, Portman waxes on about his son “being ‘gay’” so Portman takes a giant plunge of lack of reason by then claiming that he “supports ‘gay’ marriage”.

That doesn’t even make sense.

Has the son made a big presentation of many issues all at once wherein he’s announced he’s engaged in homosexual acts AND he has to marry one of those he’s with in those behaviors? Why would such a demand move a person to abandon their religious faith, beliefs, values over such combination of demand, even confused demand on many fronts?

I can understand a father, Portman, suddenly having some sort of breakdown in wanting to remain close emotionally to a child with such situations and conditions, but to leap to the then conclusion that that equals “supporting ‘gay’ marriage” is bizarre. Especially given what Portman has to-date PROFESSED to believe. But it looks like he *really didn’t* believe what he’s been claiming…

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM

When they told me they were gay, I didn’t suddenly change my beliefs, nor did I think they should be able to marry another of their own sex.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Fair enough – honest comment

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I also didn’t love them any less.

portlandon on March 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

I’m not sure how suddenly being personally exposed to the difficulties gay people face in this country is markedly different or somehow illegitimate.

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Oh! Please tell us just what difficulties an Ivy League educated son of Senator has faced in this nation. That society doesn’t recognize his relationship with some dude as the same as that of a couple connected by traditional marriage. The horror!

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

The role of the family in society is a cornerstone of conservative thought. Gay marriage is a pretty significant social change. There are few places in the nation where it truly has majority support. Therefore it’s a) an important topic where b) an unpopular solution seems to be determined to force itself on people who don’t want it.

Yeah, I’d say it’s worth chatting about now and then.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Except in a couple of cases where gay marriage was forced through by state courts (in states, btw, that probably would have approved it anyway), most of the push these days seems to be toward changing public opinion…which is how things are supposed to work.

So, generally speaking, I don’t see how it’s being forced on people who don’t want it.

As for the role of family in society, I thought *liberty* was the cornerstone of conservative thought. I’m not sure how a state allowing gays to marry destroys the integrity of your family or anyone else’s. It seems to me we’ve done a good enough job destroying the family with big gov’t and “safety nets” already.

Here’s an idea: why don’t we fight for the issues that matter, like the size and scope of government, reforming entitlements while it might make a difference, and let the chips fall where they may on the minor quibbly stuff like gay marriage?

After all, Dems push this kind of thing primarily as wedge issues because they’re custom made to distract from the important things.

But if you really want to re-enforce the Dem portrayal of ‘conservatives’ as stuck-in-the-mud fuddy-duddy white guys who hate brown people and have a creepy interest in what’s going on in your bedroom, by all means, stick with it. Chances are, the country’s so far gone we can’t stop it from spinning down toilet, anyway.

DRayRaven on March 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

This sort of irrationality is why I lost confidence and faith in Dick Cheney. I realize he has a “gay” child but for him to base a major political, religious, ethical and legislative “re-decision” on that is a huge leap that isn’t reasonable.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

If this was true there would be no prop 8 case.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM

The whole idea is to make gay marriage on the same level as interracial marriage and force churches to perform same-sex marriages or lose their tax exempt status. Today, a church that didn’t want to perform an interracial marriage because they thought it was against God’s will to do so would likely run afoul of the IRS. There is even a case involving Bob Jones university in the early 1990s that sided with Bush 41 on this issue. Many gay people, especially middle aged activists, have issues with organized religion that stem from their own upbringings.

The best response to this from a conservative standpoint is to make all marriages, both same sex and hetereosexual, civil unions and to limit the idea of “marriage” to churches.

Illinidiva on March 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Y’all can come kicking and screaming, but the direction of history and this country is clear.

stuckinwisconsin on March 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

The “direction of history”? That’s quite the affectation you need to put on to cover your asinine idea. Kicking and screaming isn’t the half of what you folks are inviting.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 11