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 4 11

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

“Difficulties”? What are those?

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

I bet Portman is also on board with JEB BUSH and his support of COMMON CORE (the evil new Curriculum that Progressive Bush is pushing!!!

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/07/viewpoint-jeb-bush-wants-to-talk-about-education/

And again WHY the obsession in DC with legalizing something that will destroy the traditional family?

Why so homosexual-centric DC????

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Let’s just hope his son doesn’t come love the welfare state, or Obamacare for that matter. I’d loathe to think… eff it. Somebody, please stand for your PRINCIPLES.

HerneTheHunter on March 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

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

The judge in question did not come out until after making the ruling. Deception. Surely even those who support sodomy can see why this might be a problem when it comes to a fair hearing under the law. In other words, it wasn’t the orientation but the non-disclosure I object to. And the anti-Christian screed in the ruling proves that it wasn’t a trivial concern.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

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

The ultimate basis for public policy, and laws, must be reason. He didn’t explain his decision in terms of reason, but in terms of his personal experience — his feelings. His contribution to the change in policy is his son is a homosexual and he loves his son? That’s no contribution.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

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

The other reason for the Prop 8 case is that the voters of the state took away a right that had been granted, and the 14th amendment does read in part “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

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

DRayRaven on March 15, 2013 at 11:58 AM

You are sadly deluded, my friend. It only achieved it’s first democratic success in two states in 2012. EVERYWHERE else it’s been imposed by judges or legislators.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

The Government needs to get out of the marriage business. Just have civil unions. If you want to get married do it in a place of your choice. Let gay people start paying support and divide property.

alanstern on March 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

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

“Difficulties”? What are those?

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

I ask because everyone experiences “difficulties” with daily life, relationships, health, economics, physical conditions, emotional ones, everything.

In my experience listening to hundreds of people complaining about “difficulties gay people experience,” they all, to a man, are convinced their own “difficulties” are special, unique, are not experienced by anyone else, that they’re victims, being victimized…

Perhaps they’re obsessed with themselves? Not empathetic about other people? Certainly not aware that problems in life are a part of being alive.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Religious teachings on it are rather ambiguous.
Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM

The bible certainly isn’t ambiguous on it. Not at all.

tommyboy on March 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Pure tenuous. Knee-jerk emotionalism is no way to run a country. But, that’s what we’ve got with these fools. Governing from emotion; appealing to emotion; not a lick of reason to be found. (Not that I’m saying that a rationale basis can’t be made for SSM – just that nobody makes one for SSM, or pretty much anything else on the statist let’s agenda.)

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Privileges and immunities clause is meaningless. Check out the Slaughterhouse Cases.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Hah. No idea how my phone changed “Pure genius” to “”Pure tenuous.”

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

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

The other reason for the Prop 8 case is that the voters of the state took away a right that had been granted, and the 14th amendment does read in part “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

At “Mister Mets”: there never was any “right” to same-sex marriage. No “right” to marry at all exists for anyone, either. Marriage isn’t, wasn’t a “right” and Prop. 8 didn’t remove any “right” from people engaged in homosexuality.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Edward Gibbon would notice a trend.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Has Portman changed parties yet..?

d1carter on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Portman’s evolution is fine, but it shouldn’t be a federal issue at all. The laws on marriage should be left to the states, under the 10th amendment.

irishspy on March 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Pure tenuous. Knee-jerk emotionalism is no way to run a country. But, that’s what we’ve got with these fools. Governing from emotion; appealing to emotion; not a lick of reason to be found.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I blame Oprah.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM

It’s always refreshing when a politician — of any stripe — confronting a clash between dogma and reality, chooses reality…especially when it annoys his base. Good work, Senator.

urban elitist on March 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 12:01 PM

The 14th amendment can be changed. Any constitution can be changed. The proper method for doing so is constitutional amendment. The judges have no right to substitute their will for the duly-enacted will of the people.

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Let the GOP become the money party… let the GOP die.

Whoooo….

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Let the GOP become the money party… let the GOP die.

Wait, wait, wait… Money and War

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

As a true small government conservative, I don’t think government should be involved with marriage at all. I see no ‘right’ to marriage in the constitution, and believe ultimately it is a state prerogative.

I think Sen. Portman’s mistake here is not changing his positions, but changing it in such a way that makes little sense. If he had argued that it should be a state right, that would be far more reasonable.

That said, ultimately his position is going to win out. The demographics, even with the GOP as it stands, show that this is a fait accompli.

neoavatara on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

It’s always refreshing when a politician — of any stripe — confronting a clash between dogma and reality, chooses reality…especially when it annoys his base. Good work, Senator.

urban elitist on March 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

So… are you saying you voted for Stalin?

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I’m also getting irritated with the “GOProud” obnoxiousness at seemingly every public statement, moment that involves the GOP and possible voters.

They claim to be somehow associated with the GOP but are not. Their entire group purpose and function, as they themselves have identified it, is to push the homosexual agenda. They seem to think they qualify as sound simply because they claim to support smaller government or to that effect, yet their ongoing braying about “‘gay’ marriage” and “rights” to be created based upon homosexual behaviors IS in and of itself a scream for bigger government.

It’s shameful to read who gets involved with that group — and every time Red Eye has that guy, Chris Barron on, I turn the channel. After a huge affront of numerous jerky tweets from Barron to me a while ago, I can’t see how anyone would ever give him the time of day — he’s a creep.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

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

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM

For starters:
Never having a family of your own, the associated acts being non-procreative.

Subjecting yourself to degrading and physically more dangerous activities (primarily males, though apparently lesbianism and obesity are heavily linked).

Placing yourself in a category objectively more prone to suicide and other destructive or anti-social behaviors (homosexuality is now normalized and overrepresented in media, and registers apathy at worse from the general population – a generalized “bigotry” is no longer a valid explanation for these persisting rates.)

Surrounding yourself with a crowd of people who will hate your family and its values far more vehemently than your family will dislike them for their proclivities (It’s more dangerous to be a Gay Catholic among Gays because of the Catholicism than around Catholics because of the homosexuality)- and subsequently replacing those values with demonstrably less favorable ones.

I could think of more, but yes, Virginia, there are moral implications to the homosexual lifestyle and culture. I note with some irony that 20 years ago the gay lobby denied there was a gay lifestyle, and now they openly acknowledge it.

Honestly, I think pro-SSM folks are so used to demonization working they can’t conceptualize a rational answer to their questions, and when they get one, they just go back to the demonization line and pretend it didn’t happen.

BKennedy on March 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

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

There is such a coldness to your post. Maybe his love for his son comes first.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I’ve always thought it was best to never denigrate other sexual orientations while supporting traditional definition of marriage. People like you give supporters of traditional marriage a bad name.

Honestly, I’m getting to the point where I don’t think same-sex marriage rights would be harmful. Don’t see how that would stop us from promoting marriage before having children.

bluegill on March 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

The judge in question did not come out until after making the ruling. Deception. Surely even those who support sodomy can see why this might be a problem when it comes to a fair hearing under the law. In other words, it wasn’t the orientation but the non-disclosure I object to. And the anti-Christian screed in the ruling proves that it wasn’t a trivial concern.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I knew that Judge Vaughn Walker was gay long before he issued his ruling.

I don’t see how it matters.

The reverse argument can also be made: A judge married to a person of the opposite sex might be said to be prejudiced against same sex marriage.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Look at the direction of this country… for those people who hate Vlad Putin, Why?

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

That said, ultimately his position is going to win out. The demographics, even with the GOP as it stands, show that this is a fait accompli.

neoavatara on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Hitler and Mussolini said the same thing.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Prop. 8 didn’t remove any “right” from people engaged in homosexuality.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Most curbs on government recognition of SSM remove the “right” to government benefits (i.e., not rights, but government goodies). But prop 8 doesn’t even do that because gay unions get those same “rights” with and without Prop 8. Maybe we all have a “right” to have all of our lifestyle choices positively affirmed by our mommy, i mean, government or something.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

It’s always disappointing when a politician, of any stripe, has to confront the decision between truth and relativistic self-satisfaction, and chooses relativism. Begone Senator.

tommyboy on March 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I knew that Judge Vaughn Walker was gay long before he issued his ruling.

I don’t see how it matters.

The problem is that Walker did not conduct himself professionally… it was a kangaroo court.

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM

the difficulties gay people face in this country [..]

LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM

“Difficulties”? What are those?

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Simple fact: you can’t be president if you are gay.

Time Lord on March 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Annnnd now he’s a hero on the left because he’s “grown” as a human being and he’s a villain on the right because he’s now saying publicly what he probably always felt privately.

His opinion on the issue does not inform or change mine. I doubt SSM supporters care though. They aren’t out to change mine anyway. They’re focused on the next generation and the next. By the time these issues get to be “voting issues”, traditionalisists, etc have already lost the battle.

Liberals are amazing propaganadists and I’m feelling just pessimistic this afternoon to admit they’re winning a race we don’t even know we’re in.

It’s not about us. It’s about our kids.

Character matters people. Pay attention to an officials private life and that will tell you how he’ll handle public life.

simon on March 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM

(Not that I’m saying that a rationale basis can’t be made for SSM – just that nobody makes one for SSM, or pretty much anything else on the statist let’s agenda.)

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM

You know why they don’t? Because if one were to try to rationally argue for the legitimacy of gay pretend marriage then one would have to FIRST expand the definition of marriage back to include what it used to (polygamy) and then would have to include community marriages and “single marriages” (for people who are single and want the value of fringe benefits that spouses get or their social security to go to their estates in order to will to a friend or someone else). i.e. totally destroying the idea of marriage in every way, shape, or form.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The reverse argument can also be made: A judge married to a person of the opposite sex might be said to be prejudiced against same sex marriage.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM

That is really not analogous. At all. And if you think about it, I’m sure you can figure out why. If not, I’ll be disappointed in your reasoning capabilities, but I’ll give you the answer.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Why Judge Walker matters is that an election’s outcome wasn’t his cup of tea so he nullified it.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

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

Having a relationship with a person of the same sex can’t be compared with raping and killing children. So this is a huge strawman.

As for the comparison with dyslexia, it’s more like burning readheads and people with birthmarks on the stake, because they are witches.

Gelsomina on March 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

That said, ultimately his position is going to win out. The demographics, even with the GOP as it stands, show that this is a fait accompli.

neoavatara on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Hitler and Mussolini said the same thing.

No, he’s right… only only those willing to be “Men Against Time” and to abolish time itself can resist.

Conservatism is dead and Ezra Pound was right.

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

That said, ultimately his position is going to win out. The demographics, even with the GOP as it stands, show that this is a fait accompli.

neoavatara on March 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Just wait until the first gay couple who happen to be NFL players. That’d open the flood gates to legitimizing sodomy within society.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

In my experience listening to hundreds of people complaining about “difficulties gay people experience,” they all, to a man, are convinced their own “difficulties” are special, unique, are not experienced by anyone else, that they’re victims, being victimized…

Perhaps they’re obsessed with themselves? Not empathetic about other people? Certainly not aware that problems in life are a part of being alive.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Money isn’t everything, but studies show homosexuals as a group have a significantly higher income than the norm. True, some people don’t “accept” them, or look down on their sexual practices in the case of gay male sex. You can’t legislate that away.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Honestly, I think pro-SSM folks are so used to demonization working they can’t conceptualize a rational answer to their questions, and when they get one, they just go back to the demonization line and pretend it didn’t happen.

BKennedy on March 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

This is true. I am a non-religious person in favor of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage. I can never, ever, get anyone to seriously debate my position with me. Socons don’t care, libs don’t agree, in-betweeners don’t understand and are too cowed by constant accusations of bigotry to have an honest conversation. Instead I get emotional garbage like “how would you feel if you couldn’t get married?”

alwaysfiredup on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Maybe the religious teachings are simply wrong on this?

lostmotherland on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Nature tells us that between two men (assuming a non-bath house situation), the pieces don’t fit. And with women, you someone has to bring an artificial piece.

Turning around and creating a society that then informs children that such conduct is awesomely awesome in its awesomeness and persecuting those who shudder at aberrant, high-risk sexual behavior is nothing short of bizarre.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Prop. 8 didn’t remove any “right” from people engaged in homosexuality.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Most curbs on government recognition of SSM remove the “right” to government benefits (i.e., not rights, but government goodies). But prop 8 doesn’t even do that because gay unions get those same “rights” with and without Prop 8. Maybe we all have a “right” to have all of our lifestyle choices positively affirmed by our mommy, i mean, government or something.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

When some people crow about how “our society” has “changed” and due to “the youth vote supporting ‘same sex marriage’”, to that effect, they’re perpetuating a lie and the lie that’s been used to twist people, vulnerable, gullible, peer-sensitive, popularity needy, youth to promote a lie…

…the lie being that people engaged in homosexuality are “denied” any “right,” that they’re being “denied” or “hated” “the right of marriage”…

Which isn’t at all true or accurate. There’s no denial of any “right” taking place, and in our society, the homosexual acts and lifestyle are featured, promoted and rewarded openly throughout culture, especially throughout media and now public education.

So youth has been fed a lie and led to believe that NOT to create these ongoing distortions of concepts equates with ‘hate’ and means someone’s been deprived of something others have…

It’s as if many people have lost their minds.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Annnnd now he’s a hero on the left because he’s “grown” as a human being and he’s a villain on the right

simon on March 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I don’t think he’s a villain – just an irrational buffoon governed by emotion rather than reason – someone who has no business being in a position of power over other human beings.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Allah All credit due for breaking down how Portman went about this.

The man is a stalking horse. It’s always been his job in the party.

McCain will wait for the SCOTUS ruling.

Be ready for Lindsay Graham to come bolting out of the closet.

This is all about stopping Rand from defining the party platform.

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.

No. He’s done and he knows it. This move guarantees Portman’s kids will be taken care of in the ivy leagues.

If you look at the programs coming out of place like Yale, where Portman’s son is at, it’s not happenstance.

…and the GOP financiers will take care of Rob. Paul Singer is behind this.

budfox on March 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM

If you stand for everything then you stand for nothing. If his son robbed a bank would he then be in favor of grand larceny? Typical malleable, valueless politician.

rplat on March 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM

The reverse argument can also be made: A judge married to a person of the opposite sex might be said to be prejudiced against same sex marriage.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Now you’re just being argumentative. You can’t possibly be this dense.

That homosexual judge had a clear conflict of interest that was not disclosed (though apparently it wasn’t much of a secret). Nevertheless, I see no difference in a sodomite ruling on legalizing sodomy than I do a judge on a corporate board ruling on a case where that corporation would net a huge profit. The sodomite judge may be a decent human being (I doubt it since he clearly hates Christians) but he had no business ruling on Prop 8. Of course he promptly retired so even he knew that he is guilty of judicial misconduct.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM

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

I guess what he found out is that being gay is not like being a thief, rapist or killer, but that it can happen to perfectly normal and decent people.

As for marriage, I agree with Rand Paul. Get the government out of it.

Gelsomina on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

As for the comparison with dyslexia, it’s more like burning readheads and people with birthmarks on the stake, because they are witches.

Gelsomina on March 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

.
Redheads aren’t witches?
.
Well I have personal experience with redheads, and can in fact attest to their witch like qualities.
.
So I will now call a press conference and discuss how my personal situation trumps my previously held beliefs.

LincolntheHun on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

rplat on March 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Like I said above. If he has a daughter, she might just be attracted to the possible family dog, does he then support bestiality?

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Money isn’t everything, but studies show homosexuals as a group have a significantly higher income than the norm. True, some people don’t “accept” them, or look down on their sexual practices in the case of gay male sex. You can’t legislate that away.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

All closed societies produce individuals with higher incomes or increased material gain. Homosexuality communities/associations do, Sharia Law does (Muslim monetary practices among Muslims), Mormons, Scientologists…

I’m not putting these down, I’m only pointing out a few closed-societies who network to maintain and reward their own by “non-formally” excluding others.

The entertainment industry is a primary example of how the homosexual ‘community’ excludes others and rewards their own, thus amplifying their gains and preventing the gains of others. Especially of others who are Christian, practicing Catholics and who aren’t on-board with the whole homosexual-activism agenda (issues, beliefs, associations).

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Race to the bottom.

They can call it whatever they want, but it’s not marriage.

Ward Cleaver on March 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Turning around and creating a society that then informs children that such conduct is awesomely awesome in its awesomeness and persecuting those who shudder at aberrant, high-risk sexual behavior is nothing short of bizarre.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

It’s a catch-22. No one wants to talk publicly about sodomy, as it’s revolting. And yet that sex act is an integral part of gay, male-male “marriage”. You can’t talk about it, and you can’t not talk about it, vis a vis the gay marriage debate. If you don’t talk about it, then you’re against the pure love of two people who just may be a little different than you are. You’re a hater. If you do bring it up, you’re disgusting.

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I guess what he found out is that being gay is not like being a thief, rapist or killer, but that it can happen to perfectly normal and

decent

people.

As for marriage, I agree with Rand Paul. Get the government out of it.

Gelsomina on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I hear many serial killers are thought of as fine upstanding decent neighbors… Does not make it so. Thwarting the will of God is not a decent thing to do.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM

If you stand for everything then you stand for nothing. If his son robbed a bank would he then be in favor of grand larceny? Typical malleable, valueless politician.

rplat on March 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM

This is the part that bothers me about Portman’s conversion. If he could explain that he used to support traditional marriage but now supports legalized sodomy because of the following reasons, I’d give him some benefit of the doubt. But essentially he changed positions solely on the fact his son bats for the other team. Not good enough a reason in and of itself.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

As for the comparison with dyslexia, it’s more like burning readheads and people with birthmarks on the stake, because they are witches.

Gelsomina on March 15, 2013 at 12:12 PM

You burning any strawmen at the stake too. because nobody is burning gays at the stake so it is in fact NOTHING like burning redheads or people with birthmarks at the stake. Funny that YOU brought up strawmen, reflect much? The comparisons I made however are very apt. Kid’s are born with cleft palates, they aren’t there by choice, yet we thinks it’s good to fix the problem not celebrate them. Children are born with dyslexia, there’s no choice there, but yet we work with those children to overcome that. Being born gay, in and of itself, is not a justification for accepting that behavior. As for the dialog, that was fiction, you seem to have trouble noticing that. It was meant as an absurd example of how stupid the “I’m born this way” argument is.

Flange on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I ask because everyone experiences “difficulties” with daily life, relationships, health, economics, physical conditions, emotional ones, everything.

In my experience listening to hundreds of people complaining about “difficulties gay people experience,” they all, to a man, are convinced their own “difficulties” are special, unique, are not experienced by anyone else, that they’re victims, being victimized…

Perhaps they’re obsessed with themselves? Not empathetic about other people? Certainly not aware that problems in life are a part of being alive. – Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Yep, homos are just whiners who haven’t been mistreated by Christians, our government or society…… By the way, Christians have been playing that persecution card for nearly 2,000 years.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

BTW: what percentage of gays actually want to get married?

Also, I don’t believe SSM is an equal protection problem. The mixed-race case (Loving) involved an immutable characteristic. SSM involves conduct. Nobody (anymore) prohibits sodomy. But does that mean that we elevate that relationship to be on the same level and the relationship that has been the backbone of civilization?

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

The problem is that Walker did not conduct himself professionally… it was a kangaroo court.

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM

You didn’t address my point. The judge’s sexual orientation was IRRELEVANT.

Should non-smoking judges be required to recuse themselves from cases involving tobacco or should smoking judges have to recuse themselves?

Should gun-owning judges be required to recuse themselves from cases involving the Second Amendment or should non-gun-owning judges have to recuse themselves?

I guess it depends on who’s ox might, theoretically, get gored.

If we are going to expand the rules controlling conflicts of interest to cover sexual orientations of judges, then be prepared for them to go much further. It won’t be long before judges, who are NRA or Rotary Club members, will be asked to recuse themselves.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Race to the bottom.

They can call it whatever they want, but it’s not marriage.

How so?

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM

rplat on March 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Like I said above. If he has a daughter, she might just be attracted to the possible family dog, does he then support bestiality?

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

On the basis of logic alone, that is what Portman’s statement represents. Which is why I find it illogical, irrational and bizarre. He’s justifying an reverse if not rejection of his proclaimed moral, religious, ethical, legislative beliefs *suddenly* “because (his) son” shared with him that he’s engaged in homosexuality. Presto, that means he supports ‘gay’ marriage. Bizarre.

Next we’ll hear he supports communism because his daughter bought a red coat.

I mean, it’s nonsensical what Portman has said.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM

You didn’t address my point. The judge’s sexual orientation was IRRELEVANT.

It could be… it wasn’t in this case…

ninjapirate on March 15, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Like I said above. If he has a daughter, she might just be attracted to the possible family dog, does he then support bestiality?

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

If his faith is what he says it is, he should be worried about his son’s soul given that he’d be living in unrepentant sin. Or maybe he’s got one of those “convenient” faiths that shapes itself to allow you to do whatever you want to do.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I guess what he found out is that being gay is not like being a thief, rapist or killer, but that it can happen to perfectly normal and decent people.

Gelsomina on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

His son had to come out of the closet for him to form the idea that a sodomite isn’t necessarily a thief, rapist, or killer? If that is true then he shouldn’t be sitting in the Senate because of his sheer ignorance.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM

studies show homosexuals as a group have a significantly higher income than the norm. [...]

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Assuming that those studies are legit, how would you explain that significant difference? Are gays just somehow better than the rest of us? There’s this vast conspiracy of gays that secures better-paying jobs and bigger raises for its members? I doubt that. Perhaps the lower you are on the income scale, the more peer pressure you feel to keep your sexual orientation a secret, and so there are disproportionately more closeted gays near the bottom of the income scale, which skews your income studies.

Time Lord on March 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Ah, the usual crowd has come to mourn the loss of another Republican or should I say pounce upon him.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:24 PM

All his principles are a matter of convenience only. He’s a Republican politician.

Ted Torgerson on March 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I’m not so sure Judge Walker’s personal orientation was irrelevant to his ruling seeing that he forced his standpoint ahead of hundreds of thousands.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Paul-Cincy on March 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I agree. But, in truth, that’s the beginning and the end of the conversation.

This is just going to destroy education. And the battle against relgious denominations will be epic.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM

You didn’t address my point. The judge’s sexual orientation was IRRELEVANT.
Should non-smoking judges be required to recuse themselves from cases involving tobacco or should smoking judges have to recuse themselves?

Another bad analogy.

Should gun-owning judges be required to recuse themselves from cases involving the Second Amendment

A much better analogy. If gun ownership wasn’t so ubiquitous.

or should non-gun-owning judges have to recuse themselves?

Another bad one.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The judge’s sexual orientation was IRRELEVANT.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I utterly disagree with that BASED UPON the decision written by the Judge himself and what his reasoning was and what he rejects, openly, as opposing claims to make his decision.

His statement was openly hateful, HATEful, about marriage as it’s been and is without his rejection of the voters’ decision, and, he makes his views from a “homosexual activism” perspective very clear.

He didn’t even have the ethics adequate enough to recuse himself from hearing that issue while he fully knew what his PRECONCEIVED and FERVENTLY HELD beliefs were as a man involved in homosexuality.

AMong which were intensely antagonistic views about voters’ beliefs as expressed in Prop. 8 if not a highly anti-social outlook overall. If that is/was due to his homosexuality activities, so be it, but surely that personality of the judge’s was not APART from his homosexual behaviors and relationships and associations.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Now you’re just being argumentative. You can’t possibly be this dense.

That homosexual judge had a clear conflict of interest that was not disclosed (though apparently it wasn’t much of a secret). Nevertheless, I see no difference in a sodomite ruling on legalizing sodomy than I do a judge on a corporate board ruling on a case where that corporation would net a huge profit. The sodomite judge may be a decent human being (I doubt it since he clearly hates Christians) but he had no business ruling on Prop 8. Of course he promptly retired so even he knew that he is guilty of judicial misconduct.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Yes, because you are, evidently, so familiar with the rules of professional responsibility and ethics.

How’d you do on the MPRE? I aced mine.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Wait. So Portman was against gay marriage until he found out his kid was being screwed by some other dude and then he thought that now makes it OK? What kind of sense does that make? It’s like saying you are against garden variety face slapping (channeling Biden here) until a family member does it and now it’s OK.

That’s referred to as insanity in psychiatric circles.

HotAirian on March 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM

How so?

Mister Mets on March 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Ever heard the old joke about “how many legs does a dog have if you call it’s tail a leg?”

If you’re religious, gay ‘marriage’ is nothing but a court-ordered fantasy because it was not mankind who ordained marriage in the first place. And thus we have about as much authority to define it as we have to repeal the law of gravity.

If you’re NOT religious, you might take a look at why sanctioned heterosexual and usually monogamous relationships were the bread and beans of every organized society worthy of the name for thousands of years of recorded history. And then you might ask yourself “is it really such a bright idea to overturn the applecart for the sake of a very shrill splinter minority?”

In either case, you can take a look at England or Canada to see what happened when the gayfia got what it wanted: they were never happy and wanted more. This WILL happen here if we let it. Guaranteed, take it to the bank, cash it, and pay next month’s rent with it.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Yes, because you, too, are another expert on the rules concerning conflicts of interest.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM

So you’re familiar with the judge’s statement made to express his “decision” about Prop. 8, I take it. You’ve read it, it doesn’t bother you to any degree? If not, why not?

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Like I said above. If he has a daughter, she might just be attracted to the possible family dog, does he then support bestiality? – astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Ah, the slippery slope argument. And, how many children do you have astorneii?

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

I guess Portman and Cheney are no longer true Republicans.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

It’s no vague philosophical debate to the Christians in other nations who are already being persecuted on the basis of bigotry to gays.

But you’ll ignore that unpleasant little fact.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

As I said back in the thread that was in the headlines section, Excellent development. I’m glad Sen. Rob Portman decided to be a good and supportive father and not, as sadly too many do, try to disown his own son over something [that should be] so inconsequential as sexual orientation.

mythicknight on March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Yes, because you, too, are another expert on the rules concerning conflicts of interest.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Whoa. Your arguments have gone straight Obama. When did I say or even remotely suggest that? What I can do, however, is recognize which cases may provide a result that could conceivably affect the “rights” of the judge. Your gun analogy does. The others do not.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Tired of politicians who forget their constituents the minute a family member barks. We had the same up here with Sayward.

Connie on March 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Like I said above. If he has a daughter, she might just be attracted to the possible family dog, does he then support bestiality? – astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Ah, the slippery slope argument. And, how many children do you have astorneii?

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

You can try to ridicule people who point out that, as “astonerii” has, but you haven’t addressed the point made and that is that the effort being made to redefine “marriage” does not prevent it from including any-which-way-with-anything-anyone change.

If you think redefining “marriage” to extend to the basis being: are engaged in homosexual behaviors and define as “homosexuals” with another person of like kind, you’re wrong. What’s being attempted doesn’t “stop” at that CONCEPTUALLY.

The type-casting of this thing, “gays,” is where the whole concept began to degenerate as to what people are doing and why… it’s become perceived as another race, or a new gender, or such. It’s not, it’s behavioral, no “inherent” aspect has ever been proven or established, or discovered.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Again, Portman is his contituents’ employee. Not his son’s.

If he wants to advocate his son’s lifestyle so much that he flips off his constituents then he needs to resign and join an advocacy group and leave the governance thingy to someone less unstable.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Yes, because you are, evidently, so familiar with the rules of professional responsibility and ethics.

How’d you do on the MPRE? I aced mine.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Apparently it doesn’t take much to ace the MPRE if you can’t even acknowledge the perception of conflict of interest in this case.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Another politician who blows with the wind. Or is that his son?

tommyboy on March 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM

As I said back in the thread that was in the headlines section, Excellent development. I’m glad Sen. Rob Portman decided to be a good and supportive father and not, as sadly too many do, try to disown his own son over something [that should be] so inconsequential as sexual orientation.

mythicknight on March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

“being a good and supportive father” doesn’t mean a sudden reversal of religious beliefs, values, ethics and legislative profile.

In fact, I find Portman’s statement to be indicative of not being “a good and supportive father.”

His son says he’s engaged in homosexual behavior. His father makes a total reversal, then, of his entire character. How is THAT being a “good and supportive father”?

Also, what does that have to do with advocating for “‘gay’ marriage”? Making matters worse, and more bizarre, Portman even tries to explain himself in this weird decision by referring to the BIble.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM

…why did [Portman] need his son to come out to get him to look at this issue from the perspective of someone who’s gay?

Dear gawd, look at the treasure trove of anti-gay comments on every gay thread…there’s your answer.

JetBoy on March 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM

It’s no vague philosophical debate to the Christians in other nations who are already being persecuted on the basis of bigotry to gays.

But you’ll ignore that unpleasant little fact. – MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Frankly, I don’t want bigotry toward gays or Christians. I find the persecution of Christians and gays in the Middle East ……………. and, elsewhere equally abhorrant. However, Christians have been throwing bricks at homosexuals since the inception of the religion.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM

So you’re familiar with the judge’s statement made to express his “decision” about Prop. 8, I take it. You’ve read it, it doesn’t bother you to any degree? If not, why not?

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

We were discussing whether he should have disclosed his sexual orientation beforehand and whether his sexual orientation was a conflict of interest.

Being a homosexual judge is not a conflict of interest in a case challenging a SSM ban any more than it is in being a heterosexual, happily married judge in a case defending a SSM ban. Period.

I haven’t read his statement in a while. IIRC, it wasn’t very complimentary to the people defending traditional marriage. That’s not my issue here. Mine is one based on the law and procedure.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Tired of politicians who forget their constituents the minute a family member barks. We had the same up here with Sayward.

Connie on March 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM

mythickhead seems to think that fathers in positions of authority can throw what are supposedly their beliefs out the window the minute they find out their DNA replicant is going against them with no more consequence than John Q. Average. And it would take a liberal to think that sexual orientation is “inconsequential”, when such a term could better be applied to their IQ.

One of the unpleasant little facts of being elected to office is that you are there at the behest of voters, NOT your family (unless you’re in Chicago), and you are supposed to represent them. Some things are supposed to transcend the behavior of family members if you actually give a hoot about them.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I guess Portman and Cheney are no longer true Republicans.

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:31 PM

They’re part of the problem of a near-deranged bunch among both parties in DC.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM

As I said back in the thread that was in the headlines section, Excellent development. I’m glad Sen. Rob Portman decided to be a good and supportive father and not, as sadly too many do, try to disown his own son over something [that should be] so inconsequential as sexual orientation.

mythicknight on March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

While I don’t care about how Portman interacts with his son in the slightest, I would note that you have presented a false dilemma. Those are not the only options. It is possible, for instance, to support your children without supporting every decision that they make and every thing that they do. Crazy, right?

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM

If his faith is what he says it is, he should be worried about his son’s soul given that he’d be living in unrepentant sin. Or maybe he’s got one of those “convenient” faiths that shapes itself to allow you to do whatever you want to do.

besser tot als rot on March 15, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Made the same argument above when addressing if my child came out to me.
You teach them that the lifestyle is degenerate and how it will damage their soul and body. You teach them how living that lifestyle separates them from God for sin is what separates us from God and Jesus cannot forgive an unrepentant person.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. And, how many children do you have astorneii?

SC.Charlie on March 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM

It is not a slippery slope, it is the EXACT same argument. My child is this, and since I love my child, my child can do no wrong, thus it must be right.
Yes, I do have children and plan to have at least a total of 5 and my wife keeps saying, if all our kids are as great as you I want 12 more!

We already know that your fudge packing decades have produced precisely the number of children that is possible. How is that culture of life lifestyle you live treating you? None of you goes on into the future. You selfishly denied God the opportunity create life through you. Instead, the only thing that mattered to you was that you got your rocks off in the most selfishly enjoyable way possible. I am sure you imagine that because you work, earn a good living, did not get HIV and I am guessing have a special partner you are devoted to that you are a great guy. I am sure in those respects, if that is all that matters, you can feel good about yourself. I think there is more to it than that. The bible says so.

astonerii on March 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I’m also getting irritated with the “GOProud” obnoxiousness at seemingly every public statement, moment that involves the GOP and possible voters.

They claim to be somehow associated with the GOP but are not. Their entire group purpose and function, as they themselves have identified it, is to push the homosexual agenda. They seem to think they qualify as sound simply because they claim to support smaller government or to that effect, yet their ongoing braying about “‘gay’ marriage” and “rights” to be created based upon homosexual behaviors IS in and of itself a scream for bigger government.

It’s shameful to read who gets involved with that group — and every time Red Eye has that guy, Chris Barron on, I turn the channel. After a huge affront of numerous jerky tweets from Barron to me a while ago, I can’t see how anyone would ever give him the time of day — he’s a creep.

Lourdes on March 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Your thoughts about Chris Barron aside (and I don’t discount those — those are your feelings based on your experience), I will first say that GOProud is not attempting to establish a direct link between it and the Republican party; rather, it is and was established to provide a voice for conservatives who happen to be gay (like myself), and to demonstrate to the broader audience that gays are not always leftwing voters. The recent preponderance of statements relative to “gay marriage” have been measured and only presented at all because the group is constantly being asked to comment on the topic because it’s in the news. Gay marriage is NOT a defining cause for GOProud — this has been adjudicated amongst the group, it’s board of directors and its board of advisors a number of times. In fact, it was on the very strong and persuasive arguments of advisory board member and anti-gay marriage pundit Ann Coulter that the topic of marriage was dropped from any official position statement in the group’s charter. A statement of support for civil marriage – at the discretion of the states – and predicated on the belief that stable (consenting) adult relationships are always better for society than the opposite case has been raised in order for the group to comment on current events. Additionally, the group has specifically expressed its disdain for ANY labeling of persons not in favor (at any level) for civil marriage for gay couples as “bigots,” “haters,” and all the usual crap you hear from the left. This further suggests that GOProud acknowledges deeply-held differences of opinion on this issue – in society and among its members as well.

Lastly, the group is not advocating any special rights based upon “homosexual behaviors” that would lead to, as you suggest, an enlargement of the federal government — just the opposite, GOProud wants to shrink the federal government.

dpduq on March 15, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Well, the congresspersons in Ohio are like the weather: if you don’t like it, wait ten minutes, it’ll change.

The Schaef on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Apparently it doesn’t take much to ace the MPRE if you can’t even acknowledge the perception of conflict of interest in this case.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2013 at 12:37 PM

The Code of Conduct for Federal judges does not require recusal in a case so that EVERYONE’S “perceptions” of a “conflict of interest” are allayed.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Whenever I hear some judge say he doesn’t have a conflict of interest I remember Lance Ito warning all participants of the severe consequences of making television appearances.

Right before he went on Larry King (when CNN actually had ratings).

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 11