Portman’s switch on gay marriage is bad for the right
Even if you support some kind of conservative accommodation to same-sex unions, it’s not ideal to have conservatives “seeing the light” because it affects them personally, even if they couch their conversions, as Portman does, in terms of his gay son helping him “gain a new perspective.” Empathy is a crucial moral virtue, but it isn’t always the best guide to public-policy debates, pace our friends on the left.
Besides, there are big, angry blocs on both sides of the issue that are unlikely to give Portman the benefit of the doubt. (As I’m writing this, Matt Yglesias is insufferably tweeting about how global warming is going to wipe several small islands off the map and how it’s “too bad Portman’s son doesn’t live on one.”) It’s eerie how closely Portman’s CNN interview mirrored President Obama’s on the issue, right down to the torrent of disclaimers up front (“I just feel that for me personally it’s important to affirm. . .”). But unlike the famous evolver-in-chief — who was always given winking credit on the progressive left for being secretly pro-gay-marriage, even as he extolled traditional marriage — Portman is going to be treated as self-serving by majorities on both sides.
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
It’s bad for Portman. Doesn’t affect the Right in the least.
Paul-Cincy on March 16, 2013 at 8:57 PM
Portman is just another one of the Vichy Republicans like McCain, Collins, etc.
The sooner they are out of politics, the better off Conservatives will be.
TKindred on March 16, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Well it gives the trolls and denialists another talking point to spam with, but that’s about the extent of the harm. Now if, say, Rand Paul had done this, it would be utterly disastrous.
MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Yep.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 16, 2013 at 9:04 PM
Portman didn’t “switch”, he just decided to stop lying to his constituents about where he really stands.
Pork-Chop on March 16, 2013 at 9:08 PM
Portman’s switch is bad for Republicans. Who said they represent the right anymore?
txhsmom on March 16, 2013 at 9:20 PM
I wish the GOP would get off this issue. Who give a flying eff?
juliesa on March 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Senator Rob Portman’s position on gay marriage matters less than a President’s stance on abortion. At least the President can theoretically nominate a Supreme Court Justice that might make a difference.
The US Senate is irrelevant to marriage. DOMA is long since passed, and it would never get un-passed until it was moot anyway. The issue is whether or not the states can keep marriage reserved for the procreative types or whether (and exactly what) the courts will force them to do.
HitNRun on March 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Heh.
CW on March 16, 2013 at 9:32 PM
In his infinite wisdom, Roberts will declare it a tax.
happytobehere on March 16, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Get the government out of marriage altogether.
And for those of you that believe government has a compelling reason to protect and promote marriage, know that getting the government out of it (like almost every other issue) will help.
happytobehere on March 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Amen Amen Amen. Half the kids graduating from college are not finding jobs. If they voted for Zero on gay marriage it was solely because they weren’t convinced the Republicans had any answers on jobs. Nevertheless, since November we’ve seen a non-stop pander-fest from Republicans on gay marriage and immigration. The continual gay marriage hand-wringing from the right is obnoxious.
msmveritas on March 16, 2013 at 10:30 PM
The fact that there’s about 3 members of the GOP that care about our spiral of debt is bad for the right.
Spliff Menendez on March 16, 2013 at 10:31 PM
The “hand wringing” is because we know the minute they get their way our religious freedom will be on borrowed time. We kinda care about that.
As for why the Rebumblicans are pandering so much, write that up to them wanting to start before the gayfia starts fighting dirty enough that the media won’t let them conveniently change sides.
The worst danger is that those 3 members are about the only ones who can walk and chew gum. It says a frightening deal that less than a dozen of them can simultaneously refuse to let tantrum-throwing gays have their way AND attempt to do something about Democrat overspending.
MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 10:49 PM
Right, like SJW gays are going to NOT vote Democrat. The ones that were conservative in the least were probably already voting Republican begrudgingly, and in secret.
mintycrys on March 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Gay “marriage” in England and Canada, has gotten the government into bludgeoning people of faith and churches with the power of their laws – big time.
That’s America five years from now, unless the GOP stands against the progressive homosexual agenda. Heck, it’s happening here now.
Rebar on March 17, 2013 at 2:06 AM
…is easier when:
a) You have a gay son you “hid” in the run-up to the 2012 election.
b) You were picked as a Pres. Obama debate stand-in, but not for Mr. Romney’s ultimate V.P. choice.
c) Your guy, for whom you continued to advocate in (presumed) hopes for a cabinet position, didn’t win.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 17, 2013 at 2:53 AM