[QUOTE=Huffpo]
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has reversed his stance on same-sex marriage two years after learning that his son is gay, several Ohio news outlets, including the Columbus Dispatch and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, reported Friday.
In an interview with Ohio reporters in his Senate office, Portman said that his son, Will, came out to the senator and his wife in February 2011.
“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.
[/QUOTE]
I’m conflicted with this shit. On one hand, it’s certianly a good thing he is trying to do right by his son. But on the other hand, he’s only changing his position because now, gay rights effect him personally. Which I think is pretty god damned selfish.
I also feel equally frustrated towards the politicians who “change their stance” on marriage equality AFTER they retire. Cowards!
Well, better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the *wrong *thing for the wrong reasons.
Isn’t this pretty much the same route most people use to overcome their bigotry? They realize what it would, or does, mean to them if it affected them personally, and the rest follows.
So, yes, Portman’s still a dick for many reasons, but not this one anymore.
He’s still a dick. He’s the poster boy for Republican family values. “It’s okay when it affects my family, it’s not ok if it only affects your family”.
I have to say, I am quite impressed that Portman didn’t fall into the hypercorrection trap. Thank you, Rob Portman, for not saying “told my wife, Jane, and I.”
Yes, it’s sort of like the, “I don’t want you to do the dishes, I want you to want to do the dishes.” Either way the dishes are getting done so take comfort in that!
I don’t really care why people change their minds as long as they get it right, and this is how many people figure out they’ve been wrong on this issue. Good for Portman on that score. Of course I can’t help noticing that his son came out two years ago and he only just happened to mention this in public now…
And this should be another nail in the coffin of those “marriage libertarian” threads who say that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and convert all our marriages to civil unions and let marriage be the domain of religious institutions. We’re winning. No libertarian compromise is necesssary.
I don’t get it. Why are people so eager to hate that a man who changes his position on gay marriage because he finally has to face it in a personal way, is still spit upon because he didn’t jump through the appropriate hoops?
I have some friends like this, who seem to thrive on hating anyone who believes the wrong thing. The fact that this guy is a Republican means that unless he lies prostrate and begs forgiveness from the Righteous Left, they will keep spitting on him because it feels good to be better than him.
This. Let’s see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
I’m not a big fan of the prodigal son concept here. I’m not hating on the guy for changing his mind, but do you think he would have changed at all if it wasn’t his own son that was affected? I’m not hearing the guy say he was wrong and should have known better, only that he’s seen the light because it affects him personally now. How long do we wait for enough Republicans to have unemployed, uninsured, or shot by lunatic children before they start changing their minds about other issues?
The government has the power to make laws. That’s not going to change, not even with the “libertarian compromise.” And it shouldn’t. The goal is to get it to make the right laws. And in a situation like this, a complete reversal is very unlikely. Government is changing because society is changing. And that’s as should be.
The constitution is supposed to guarantee equal protection and prevent the government from making arbitrary laws. It’s easy to support the arbitrary laws you personally support, and that’s the problem reflected here.
It’s got nothing to do with hoops. It would just be preferable if he realized there’s nothing wrong with gay people on the merits of the debate, rather than because he now stands to benefit.
That’s not to say I think he’s a dick because he came to understanding this way. As I say, it’s not ideal, but we’ll take it.
Would I be expected to give him credit for publicly changing his mind on reproductive rights if his daughter got knocked up and suddenly needed an abortion?
My aunt and uncle, a marketing analyst and insurance adjuster, changed their minds about gay rights when their son, my godson, came out as gay. As private citizens, I don’t really expect them to put a ton of thought into how their personal beliefs translate to politics and policy.
Rob Portman is a politician and a lawyer. I hold him to a higher standard of intellectualized empathy.
Good for him for not kicking his kid out of the house, I guess, but he’s still welcome to go fuck himself.
This is an argument that the Supreme Court should find that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is a violation of equal protection. Fine, I agree.
It is not, however, an argument that the government should withdraw recognition of all marriage as a matter of policy on the basis that the struggle is unwinnable.
To an extent, this might the better way to do it. Establish a momentum and a critical mass of political shifts in favor of same-sex marriage, and, eventually, we will have a Supreme Court that will enshrine it with an equal protection ruling.
There is no prophylactic against political struggles for rights.