GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

Jack Hays said:

I suggest less Sturm und Drang is in order. The question is not some great policy decision but whether one Senator supports gay marriage. Senator Portman is entitled to the benefit of the doubt whether he would, if he were POTUS, approach a great public policy decision differently. On questions like gay rights and abortion many people form their personal opinions based on real life experiences and relationships, and I'm not sure that's not healthier than slavish adherence to abstract principle.

Click to expand...

Good afternoon 2M - I stand by my comments, particularly considering the context in which Senator Portman made his comments and his direct association to the current case before the Supreme Court related to California's Proposition 8 - that makes it a relevant policy issue and not just a personal one.

People seem to think that I somehow don't support gay marriage simply because I don't support Senator Portman's decision that gay marriage was bad until his son wanted to marry his gay partner, now it's good. I never had a problem with it - moreover, I don't think the government should be involved in any marriage - gay, straight, polygamy or whatever anyone else can think up.

The sooner governments got out of the business of socially engineering society through tax and benefit policy based on the "status" of a citizen's personal dynamic, the better off society will be.

CanadaJohn said:

Good afternoon 2M - I stand by my comments, particularly considering the context in which Senator Portman made his comments and his direct association to the current case before the Supreme Court related to California's Proposition 8 - that makes it a relevant policy issue and not just a personal one.

People seem to think that I somehow don't support gay marriage simply because I don't support Senator Portman's decision that gay marriage was bad until his son wanted to marry his gay partner, now it's good. I never had a problem with it - moreover, I don't think the government should be involved in any marriage - gay, straight, polygamy or whatever anyone else can think up.

The sooner governments got out of the business of socially engineering society through tax and benefit policy based on the "status" of a citizen's personal dynamic, the better off society will be.

Click to expand...

I believe the Senator has every right to arrive at his view by whatever path he wishes.

Jack Hays said:

I believe the Senator has every right to arrive at his view by whatever path he wishes.

Click to expand...

Indeed - I never suggested otherwise.

This would mean a whole lot more if he could do the right thing without his own family having to be affected by it.

Paschendale said:

This would mean a whole lot more if he could do the right thing without his own family having to be affected by it.

Click to expand...

In my experience most people make their decisions about questions like this based on personal experiences and relationships. Beyond the absolutism of forums like this, that's how real life is lived.

Jack Hays said:

In my experience most people make their decisions about questions like this based on personal experiences and relationships. Beyond the absolutism of forums like this, that's how real life is lived.

Click to expand...

And shouldn't we hold ourselves (and especially our leaders) to a higher standard than that? Should we permit discrimination and suffering merely because it doesn't affect us or those close to us? Of course not. That's why we're not barbarians.

Paschendale said:

And shouldn't we hold ourselves (and especially our leaders) to a higher standard than that? Should we permit discrimination and suffering merely because it doesn't affect us or those close to us? Of course not. That's why we're not barbarians.

Click to expand...

On personal morality questions like this, no, we should not demand or expect better than we do ourselves. Whether a given view promotes "discrimination and suffering" or "sound morals and justice" is completely in the eye of the beholder. We're not barbarians because we tolerate both views, not because we rush to impose one or the other.

My opinion is that politicians should be able to empathize with everyone, not just their friends, business associates and family, as a requirement for the job. The inability to empathize with others causes many political problems and unnecessary disputes.

His change of heart shows the value of coming out to the people around you, since many people can't empathize well with outsiders. To oppose discrimination and oppression, other wrongly demonized people should also "come out," including unpopular religions, responsible recreational drug users and alternative sex practioners.

Zyphlin said:

I also love the sanctimony on this thread, as if everyone here hasn't had some moment in their life where something happened to you or people around you and that caused you to reevaluate some view/thought/action/idea/etc. Bitching about that is bitching about the human experience and how people function. New experiences present new information and cause the brain to look at whatever is before them in a different way and react to it going forward using that new information.

Click to expand...

True.

But...

Some people, more than others, have learned to see other people as they would see their friends, family and associates...as human beings worthy of basic respect with differing ways of expressing the same basic needs and desires. Those people should be our political leaders.

Based on the polls showing changed views on gay marriage within the last couple of years, this quality is lacking amongst the public also. It took a critical mass of out gay people and their friends and families to convince the majority of the public that gays are actually people also.

Perotista said:

I think that goes without saying. Gay marriage is illegal in my home state of Georgia, but legal in Iowa. If a gay couple travels to Iowa to get married and brings back the marriage certificate, both the federal government and the state of Georgia must recognize that certificate the same as any heterosexual marriage certificate from another state. Failure to do so would bring in Section 1 and 2 of Article IV of the constitution.

Click to expand...

The Defense of Marriage Act says otherwise. I hope the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Hatuey said:

States should not get to recognize who can and can't get married. What is Mississippi decides that blacks and whites shouldn't marry? Yeah. No thanks. It's a federal institution for a good reason.

Click to expand...

Marriage is not a federal instittion, but it does impact taxes and benefits that the feds administer. The Supreme Court invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 based on federally recognized individual civil rights, not because it is the federal govenment's role to handle marriage laws in general.

ocean515 said:

So you're trying to suggest that voters in one of the most liberal states in the United States can be bought off by people in Utah?

If that's true, California is in worse shape than it appears. However, it may explain how it got in the shape it is.

Of course, the SCOTUS didn't invalidate anything I wrote. It may invalidate the results, but it can't invalidate the votes.

Try to keep it real.

Click to expand...

California is not as liberal as reputed. It is has had Republican governors quite recently.

Hatuey said:

And I've stated twice now why that is a terrible idea. States within a federal body shouldn't get to decide who is married and who isn't. It should be a standard law for all living under the same political entity.

Click to expand...

Currently the states determine the ages when you can marry, whether blood tests are required and other details. Other states and the feds are required to recognize out of state marriages per the constitition. The Defense of Marriage Act created an exception to that principal, by exempting only gay marriages from the requirement that all marriages be recognized across states and by the feds.

CanadaJohn said:

I see you've reverted to form, as most good liberals do, and started throwing the personal insults around - "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron" - that always adds a great level of value to an adult conversation - congrats!

Click to expand...

Actually, I said if you don't agree with yourself you are a moron. You see, if you follow a path you figure out is wrong and continue to be wrong then yes you are a moron. granted this is an area of personal value judgements, but if you look at it the person in question discovered he felt that his old stance was wrong. It is a pretty common thing for people to take up an idea regarding theology and philosophy and to change their mind when they experience something that shows them to be incorrect. he came to that conclusion, and if he had continued diown the wrong path because he was goosestepping with the others then yes that would be a moronic thing to do.

CanadaJohn said:

Secondly, not sure where you got the idea I'm a shill for the Republican Party - since I'm Canadian, as you pointed out in another of your typical liberal ploys - the xenophobic dismissal - I'm not eligible to be a member of that party, even if I chose to do so - I actually consider myself a conservative so wouldn't be a Republican even if I could so save your rant against Republicans for someone who cares.

Click to expand...

When you advertise you are conservative please don't be surprised when someone implies you are with the conservatives. It just happens you also tend to argue sonme conservative points, despite not having the ability to participate fully in the US system. It seems obvious canada has it's own conservative people. I can understand your desire to not be associated with the US party turning itself into a bigger and bigger joke, but you do go out of your way to support them in ideas.

CanadaJohn said:

Finally, in your zeal to criticize and dismiss my comments, you failed to comprehend what I said - I didn't once criticize Senator Portman's change of heart - I actually feel he was wrong in his position prior to his change of heart, since I don't believe the government needs to have any say in the personal, private lives of its citizens. What I did say was that I believe it is wrong for a person to make a significant public policy decision solely on the basis of family circumstances.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that once he realized he was wrong he should have just continued to do the wrong thing because it would have been wrong to change his mind because of his family? I am sorry, but that sounds like a really moronic thing to do. I have to stand by my initial evaluation of someone who would do that being a moron.

Jack Hays said:

On personal morality questions like this, no, we should not demand or expect better than we do ourselves. Whether a given view promotes "discrimination and suffering" or "sound morals and justice" is completely in the eye of the beholder. We're not barbarians because we tolerate both views, not because we rush to impose one or the other.

Click to expand...

Correct. But exactly how should this person who "changed their mind" about gay marriage be viewed ? He was an enthusiastic, if not gungho, opponent of gay marriage before his son came out--------So, what, he had an epiphany ?.........Be against anything for no reason until it effects someone in your family, then abruptly shift gears ?..............Conservatives think conservatives don't have gay kids ?....................

tererun said:

Actually, I said if you don't agree with yourself you are a moron. You see, if you follow a path you figure out is wrong and continue to be wrong then yes you are a moron. granted this is an area of personal value judgements, but if you look at it the person in question discovered he felt that his old stance was wrong. It is a pretty common thing for people to take up an idea regarding theology and philosophy and to change their mind when they experience something that shows them to be incorrect. he came to that conclusion, and if he had continued diown the wrong path because he was goosestepping with the others then yes that would be a moronic thing to do.


When you advertise you are conservative please don't be surprised when someone implies you are with the conservatives. It just happens you also tend to argue sonme conservative points, despite not having the ability to participate fully in the US system. It seems obvious canada has it's own conservative people. I can understand your desire to not be associated with the US party turning itself into a bigger and bigger joke, but you do go out of your way to support them in ideas.


So what you are saying is that once he realized he was wrong he should have just continued to do the wrong thing because it would have been wrong to change his mind because of his family? I am sorry, but that sounds like a really moronic thing to do. I have to stand by my initial evaluation of someone who would do that being a moron.

Click to expand...

I won't do you the disservice of reporting your comments as abusive as you clearly did with one of mine. I'm man enough to participate in debate and defend myself without running to mommy. You clearly still haven't any understanding of my original post so further exchange of thoughts with you would be pointless.

Hard Truth said:

Currently the states determine the ages when you can marry, whether blood tests are required and other details.

Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with deciding "WHO" they get married to. The state can't arbitrarily decide blonds and brunettes can't get married anymore than it can decide whether a guy who wears earrings and a girl who doesn't can.

Bonzai said:

Correct. But exactly how should this person who "changed their mind" about gay marriage be viewed ? He was an enthusiastic, if not gungho, opponent of gay marriage before his son came out--------So, what, he had an epiphany ?.........Be against anything for no reason until it effects someone in your family, then abruptly shift gears ?..............Conservatives think conservatives don't have gay kids ?....................

Click to expand...

As an answer to your last question, yes. They are told over and over it is a choice. it is something psychological you can cure. it is something that comes from when your kid was two and he looked too long at something pink. There are many cons who have been told some really abhorrent lies, and have been completely mislead. I was watching some conservative guy testify in Missouri about gay marriage and he actually said the reason aids happens is because a uterus stops the spread of aids. Someone told this guy that a uterus filters the aids virus, and he believed them. All of that is not good enough either, because then they bring the afterlife into it, tell everyone we are going extinct, and make it seem like gays are going to outlaw people having families.

The problem is they dress these village idiots who spread this BS up in suits and call them news people. They call some of them doctors. they give some silly hats and call them representatives of god. It is not terribly surprising people believe them when they assume positions of knowledge and authority to spread lies and BS. They want gays back in the closet because first hand knowledge destroys these lies in many people. If the only exposure you ever have or know about with the gay community is some guy lying to make them look like the worst possible people in the world, some people are going to buy it. When gay people have to hide who they are for fear of retribution this makes them invisible because most people assume you are straight until they find out different. This allows the pro-straight liars to pretend that you are not surrounded by respectable homosexuals every day who you would never know. because it is easy to pretend you don't know any gay people is the reason why it becomes important for gay people to come out. It is also dangerous because everyone knows there is discrimination and the people who do not want gays seen make a huge effort to do that.

So yes when this guy changes his mind because his son was probably the first person he knew well and loved who was gay, then it changed his mind. unfortunately that does not always happen. It is acceptable to disown, attack, and torture gay children. yes, people's minds are often changed about prejudices because of someone close to them. It is just something one has to accept about humans. Sometimes it takes a pretty big knock to the head to tell them thy were wrong. At least he admitted it, and showing some of the more stubborn gay haters it is ok to admit to being wrong will give those people an excuse to follow suit. I know the world would be a much better place if people didn't wait for something so obvious to re-evaluate their feelings, but the world is what it is.

Bonzai said:

Correct. But exactly how should this person who "changed their mind" about gay marriage be viewed ? He was an enthusiastic, if not gungho, opponent of gay marriage before his son came out--------So, what, he had an epiphany ?.........Be against anything for no reason until it effects someone in your family, then abruptly shift gears ?..............Conservatives think conservatives don't have gay kids ?....................

Click to expand...

Real life intervened. Who knows, or cares, why?

Hatuey said:

None of this has anything to do with deciding "WHO" they get married to. The state can't arbitrarily decide blonds and brunettes can't get married anymore than it can decide whether a guy who wears earrings and a girl who doesn't can.

Click to expand...

States decide "WHO" by age, and now that some states legalized gay marriage, by gender. Up until 1967, they could restrict marriage by race. When the Supremes banned anti-miscegenation laws they did not take away state's overall authority to regulate marriage as long as it was race neutral. I'm not saying whether state regulation of marriage is desirable or not, it is the current state of the law.

Hard Truth said:

California is not as liberal as reputed. It is has had Republican governors quite recently.

Click to expand...

The last true Republican Governor in California was Pete Wilson, who left office with a multi-billion surplus. Gray Davis, his Democrat successor was recalled before his first term was up, but not before signing legislation that continues to bury the state today.

Arnold S, was anything but a Republican, as his catastrophic support of Global Warming and and other far left Progressive intiatives proved.

Sorry, but you're not close. No other state, and in some cases, no other country in the world, has adopted the far left liberal/progressive agenda as California has.

The economy in California should provide ample proof of this.