• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,331
Reaction score
26,992
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from the Columbus Dispatch and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay."It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have—to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman said.
In an interview with CNN, Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him "that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it's just part of who he is, and that he'd been that way for as long as he could remember."


The dramatic announcement comes just a week before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a measure Portman co-sponsored as a member of the House in 1996
Click to expand...

Good for him. However, this won't mean much considering:

Rob Portman on the Issues


  • Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
  • Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
  • Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
  • Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
  • Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
  • Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
  • Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Click to expand...
 
How long until his base starts calling him a "RINO?" LOL!
 
Lol that was big of him.
 
I think it's entirely reasonable for him to come to that conclussion. I do think having it impact your life can change how you view it. I don't blame him for changing and can respect the reasons why he cahnged it. I can also understand people would suggest that a politician needs to have a broader view rather than one on a personal level, because their making choices that are impacting everyone in the country not just individual families. I don't think Portman's a RINO, and don't have an issue with his change of stance.

To counter the notion of "I wonder how long before he's called a RINO", my question would be how quick the Media will try to suggest he's a "Moderate" if he runs in a primary in 2016 to re-enforce that "RINO" image to damage him sans any kind of intelligent reasoned analysis of his entire view points (what I'd call the Huntsman Strategy).
 
Well it's good that he changed his stance but I'm getting tired of giving Kudos to folks that take stances like these only when it personally impacts them. Human beings have this remarkable ability to empathize with other human beings. Put themselves in someone elses position, think of how they would feel in that position. Would be nice for someone that makes policies for others to use empathy in the first place!
 
I heard the interview and I have to say irrespective of his decision to now support gay marriage, Mr. Portman proved himself unfit to be President or Vice-President for the way he made his decision. He claimed that his change in view is based on his son being gay and wanting his son to have the ability to marry whom he wants. That's fine, but you don't make a decision on principles based on an emotional reaction to your child's needs or wants. Make the decision because you believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights, not because you want something special for your son.
 
WTF do I care what a RINO thinks?















:2razz:
 
CanadaJohn said:
I heard the interview and I have to say irrespective of his decision to now support gay marriage, Mr. Portman proved himself unfit to be President or Vice-President for the way he made his decision. He claimed that his change in view is based on his son being gay and wanting his son to have the ability to marry whom he wants. That's fine, but you don't make a decision on principles based on an emotional reaction to your child's needs or wants. Make the decision because you believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights, not because you want something special for your son.
Click to expand...

Actually maybe it's more that his personal experience with his son gave him a different perspective on the issue.
 
X Factor said:
Actually maybe it's more that his personal experience with his son gave him a different perspective on the issue.
Click to expand...

Perhaps - but I believe he's a Catholic so you can have the Catholic principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" and not change your core view. If my son robs a bank, I'm still going to love my son but not suddenly think robbing a bank is okay. I know that's a poor analogy, so people, keep the hate to yourselves, I'm just making the point that you don't want people who lead to be making decisions that affect the entire population based on personal or family needs.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I heard the interview and I have to say irrespective of his decision to now support gay marriage, Mr. Portman proved himself unfit to be President or Vice-President for the way he made his decision. He claimed that his change in view is based on his son being gay and wanting his son to have the ability to marry whom he wants. That's fine, but you don't make a decision on principles based on an emotional reaction to your child's needs or wants. Make the decision because you believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights, not because you want something special for your son.
Click to expand...

Human nature being what it is, I think sometimes when you find a personal reason for changing your mind, it makes you aware that maybe your previous thoughts weren't the correct ones. When it hits home, and you realize that you can still love someone even though they have admitted to something you may not have agreed with earlier, it's bound to cause some inner soul searching. As an political example, why do people change from being liberal to conservative, or vice versa? The idiology hasn't changed, but their thoughts have. Just my opinion... :)
 
Hatuey said:
GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out | The Ticket - Yahoo! News



Good for him. However, this won't mean much considering:

Rob Portman on the Issues
Click to expand...

Since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine who can or can't be married, I am perfectly happy to let the states decide this issue. If some states want to recognize gay marriages and some don't, that is the states right. I don't have a problem with it.

As for Portman, the realization that each individual ought to live his life as he sees fit, I would say about time. Gay marriage does not hurt any one. So in my opinion it ought to be legal. But I have no problem with this issue being decided state by state. As time goes by more and more state will allow it with out the animosity a forced recognition would bring.
 
Perotista said:
Since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine who can or can't be married, I am perfectly happy to let the states decide this issue. If some states want to recognize gay marriages and some don't, that is the states right. I don't have a problem with it.

As for Portman, the realization that each individual ought to live his life as he sees fit, I would say about time. Gay marriage does not hurt any one. So in my opinion it ought to be legal. But I have no problem with this issue being decided state by state. As time goes by more and more state will allow it with out the animosity a forced recognition would bring.
Click to expand...

Thank you-well reasoned post!!:applaud
 
Perotista said:
Since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine who can or can't be married, I am perfectly happy to let the states decide this issue. If some states want to recognize gay marriages and some don't, that is the states right. I don't have a problem with it.

As for Portman, the realization that each individual ought to live his life as he sees fit, I would say about time. Gay marriage does not hurt any one. So in my opinion it ought to be legal. But I have no problem with this issue being decided state by state. As time goes by more and more state will allow it with out the animosity a forced recognition would bring.
Click to expand...


Don't you think the key issue should be granting Federal recognition along the same lines as a heterosexual couple?

It seems to me, all else is just a feel good exercise.

The real benefits afforded through the application of tax law, inheritance, Social Security, etc. should be the goal, not recognition of an act or ceremony.
 
He isnt a RINO, he simply has no character. I think it is far more laughable that people applaud his change of heart than it is he HAD the change of heart...only after it impacted his family. But then...values on this issue are always a casualty. Just ask Marco McMillian. Well...if he was still alive...
 
I was disappointed that some people thought that it was too little too late. When minority issues directly impact people, yes, it changes people's opinions, as it should. We should not dismiss their change because of this. If we did that, you could not believe the number of changes for many minorities would not move forward. Do I believe for an instant Sarah Palin cared a lick about the disabled before her son? I doubt it. Many people I know didn't care before it personally affected them. Now that it has impacted them directly and they changed, that's good. They are politically useful at the very least. Embrace Portman, turn him toward you. Worry about your "been there first" whining later.
 
ocean515 said:
Don't you think the key issue should be granting Federal recognition.....
The real benefits afforded through the application of tax law, inheritance, Social Security, etc. should be the goal, not recognition of an act or ceremony.
Click to expand...

Small steps. Nothing, outside of extreme force, usually comes quickly. The more and more the GOP comes around to recognizing that SSM should happen, the more likely SSM being legalized will become.
 
Perotista said:
Since the constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine who can or can't be married, I am perfectly happy to let the states decide this issue. If some states want to recognize gay marriages and some don't, that is the states right. I don't have a problem with it.

As for Portman, the realization that each individual ought to live his life as he sees fit, I would say about time. Gay marriage does not hurt any one. So in my opinion it ought to be legal. But I have no problem with this issue being decided state by state. As time goes by more and more state will allow it with out the animosity a forced recognition would bring.
Click to expand...

The only thing I would force is that if you are married in one state, your marriage should be recognized by all the states.
 
VanceMack said:
He isnt a RINO, he simply has no character. I think it is far more laughable that people applaud his change of heart than it is he HAD the change of heart...only after it impacted his family. But then...values on this issue are always a casualty. Just ask Marco McMillian. Well...if he was still alive...
Click to expand...

Vance, his reversal on SSM is a lack of character?
 
TheNextEra said:
Small steps. Nothing, outside of extreme force, usually comes quickly. The more and more the GOP comes around to recognizing that SSM should happen, the more likely SSM being legalized will become.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a GOP issue. That is where the issue falls on it's face. If voters in extremely liberal California can pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, the GOP excuse is clearly misguided.

It's an awesome talking point to rally the faithful, but it has no basis in reality.

Pushing for state recognition achieves nothing. It's the Fed's who must extend the benefits already granted to heterosexual couples. Lose the "must call it marriage" demand, and it likely passes without much delay. People seem quite firm about maintaining the traditional definition of the word "marriage".
 
Gina said:
Vance, his reversal on SSM is a lack of character?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. When it is someone ELSES kid...well...he believes what he believes. When it becomes HIS kid...well...now...let me examine that...huh...OK...I changed my mind.
I mean...come on...at least Obama changed his mind to earn campaign cash and votes.

I have no problem with someone taking a good hard look at their belief system..challenging said belief system, and even changing their mind. Thats a good thing. My opinion on abortion and the death penalty has changed after debate and some consideration. But this is tantamount to a death bed confession.
 
ocean515 said:
Don't you think the key issue should be granting Federal recognition along the same lines as a heterosexual couple?

It seems to me, all else is just a feel good exercise.

The real benefits afforded through the application of tax law, inheritance, Social Security, etc. should be the goal, not recognition of an act or ceremony.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rocket88 said:
The only thing I would force is that if you are married in one state, your marriage should be recognized by all the states.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As long as a state recognizes heterosexual marriages from another state for the purposes of benefits, it would be unconstitutional not to recognize valid gay marriages certificates.
 
VanceMack said:
Absolutely. When it is someone ELSES kid...well...he believes what he believes. When it becomes HIS kid...well...now...let me examine that...huh...OK...I changed my mind.
I mean...come on...at least Obama changed his mind to earn campaign cash and votes.

I have no problem with someone taking a good hard look at their belief system..challenging said belief system, and even changing their mind. Thats a good thing. My opinion on abortion and the death penalty has changed after debate and some consideration. But this is tantamount to a death bed confession.
Click to expand...

What a luxury it would be to dismiss a potential ally! Spare us the silly idealism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom