Most of the people I’ve come across only care about things that affect them directly, and they actively don’t give a shit when it comes to people who are not their friends or family members.
If there were a vote that would magically give every gay person in America a rainbow-colored jacket, completely free of charge to everyone including the taxpayer, there would be people who vote “no” just because they can, and because they’re not gay.
Allowing gays to marry is better than the rainbow jacket, and most gays want that ability, and it costs us nothing. But people still oppose it, because those people are huge pus-filled dicks.
He’s an enlightened dick. Suppose for a moment that his son came out ten years ago, not three. Do you think for a minute he would have come out in favor of gay marriage? I doubt it. Ten years ago, if Republicans wanted to beef up the turnout of their base, they’d put a referendum on the ballot to ban gay marriage. It always worked. Now, times are changed. Homophobia isn’t the crowd-pleaser that it used to be. There’s much less political risk to speak out out for gay marriage. If he had done so ten years ago, I’d be impressed. Now, not so much.
Given the tidal shift in public opinion about SSM generally, that might explain Congressional Republicans’ impressive public approval rating of… 24%: Congress: Republicans
It’s interesting to see the trends, though. Note that support among Democrats is pretty flat until about 2007, when it starts to increase. And note that there is about a 3 year lag among Independents and Republicans, where you see a rise in support starting in 2010, after being flat before that.
I think we’re at the very beginnings of large groups of people supporting SSM, and 5 or 10 years from now, things are going to look very different.
How so? Has he decided not to run for re-election to the Senate in 2014, or to try a presidential run in that year?
Well, he has several years to gauge the response before his next election campaign (in 2016, not 2014). If negative, he can shut up and it’ll be long forgotten about (or at least buried under a steady tide of Republican outrages), and if positive he can run with it, claiming he was one of the first to come around.
I invite you to point out the wrongness before I’ll recognize its existence. At most, I guess I could have elaborated a bit more about the political timing, i.e. the U.S, is gradually leaning toward legalizing gay marriage and there may be a schism coming between the economy-minded Republican supporters and the social-regulation-minded Republican supporters (especially in light of the recent election in which Republicans did not take the Presidency and lost ground in both chambers) and this isn’t like some kind of gutsy dice-roll a candidate makes when he’s in the midst of an election campaign, so…
…I’m standing by my statement. If a Republican was going to float a trial balloon on this issue, this is the safest possible time to do so. The risk to Portman is minimal and it may pay off handsomely in 2016 if current trends continue.
But if you’d rather just throw out vapid claims, fine… your post is made-up BS. So there. I got you good. Victory dance. Balloons and parades.
Homophobia is not a rational position. People don’t come into that position rationally. And you can’t be reasoned out of what you weren’t reasoned into.
I’m pretty sure that most people who were taught to be homophobes growing up began to change their position because their life intersected with a gay person. I know I sure did. And, what’s more, it was a sort of gateway drug to liberalism, leading me to be more liberal than a lot of you (in that i include the mentally ill in the disadvantaged class, calling out bigotry against them when I see it.)
As for the exact OP of this thread: dickism is not bivalent. It’s a range. This guy is a little less of a dick because of this. Ultimately, we’re all dicks compared to someone else. For example, all of us who post in the Pit are dicks compared to the people who would find it unconscionable.
I can’t fault him for changing his mind because he has been personally affected by the situation. It’s much better than the alternative. He’s not alone either. A recent NPR poll showed that 28% of Americans who now support gay marriage now do so because it personally affected their lives.
I do think that if politicians are elected to represent the people, they need to think or go beyond their own personal experiences.
And for the GOP as a whole, they need to consider that most Americans now support gay marriage, especially the younger voters. (See link above)
Portman certainly didn’t have to react to the fact that his son was gay by saying he supported gay marriage, he could just as easily have said something to the effect of “I love my son but I still cannot conscionably support gay marriage.” and which would have been far more politically advantageous to him.
Well, I don’t agree that opposition to same-sex marriage is definitively “homophobia.” I had what I believed were solid reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, even while I supported civil unions.
Then, in a long thread here on the SDMB several years ago, I was out-argued – that is, I was reasoned into understanding that my stance was not, in fact, based on solid reasons.
And so I changed my position.
Now, does that constitute being “reasoned out” of homophobia?
Mark Warner now supports Marriage Equality because, “it’s the fair and right thing to do” not because, “my son told me he’s gay and I don’t want my family inconvenienced.”