Posted on 03/15/2013 2:45:48 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Rob Portman’s dual revelations that his son is gay and that he has decided to support gay marriage are both a touching story of familial love and another signpost in the astonishingly rapid success of the gay-rights revolution. Just over eight years ago, when Republicans gleefully seized on the gay-marriage issue to mobilize their base in Portman’s own state, it was inconceivable that a statewide Democrat would endorse gay marriage, let alone a Republican. The triumph of the issue relies upon the changing of minds — some thanks to force of argument, others to personal contact with gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors. From that standpoint, Portman’s conversion is a Very Good Thing. And yet as a window into the working of Portman’s mind, his conversion is a confession of moral failure, one of which he appears unaware.
Here is the story Portman tells, in a Columbus Dispatch op-ed, of how he came to change his mind:
At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.
By Portman’s own account, in other words, he opposed gay marriage until he realized that opposition to gay marriage stands in the way of his own son’s happiness.
Wanting your children to be happy is the most natural human impulse. But our responsibility as political beings — and the special responsibility of those who hold political power — is to consider issues from a societal perspective.
It is possible to argue that the societal cost of granting the right to gay marriage — or, say, access to health insurance — outweighs the benefit. The signal failure of conservative thought is an inability to give any weight to the perspective of the disadvantaged. It’s one thing to argue that society can’t afford to provide all its citizens with access to health insurance. It’s quite another to dismiss the needs of the uninsured because the majority has insurance. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Paul Ryan dismissed universal health insurance as “a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for.” The construction was so telling — “we” meant the majority who have access to regular medical care and would rather not subsidize those who don’t.
It is also possible to change your mind on any of these questions. I support the estate tax. If I discovered my children were due to inherit a fortune from a long lost relative, it’s possible that the experience would prompt me to change my mind. I’d like to think it wouldn’t. And if I did change my mind, I’d have some obligation to explain how I had learned something new in the process of suddenly becoming the father of wealthy heirs — estate planning is way more onerous than I thought! — rather than simply construct a new rationale to suit my newly discovered self-interest. If I simply declared that my children’s newfound wealth had given me a previously absent sympathy for the economic rights of the very rich, you would rightly question the value of my thinking on anything.
In President Obama’s interview explaining his reversal on gay marriage, he cited contact with gay friends, but also wrestled with the competing demands of gay happiness against the prerogative of those wedded to traditional practices. (“When I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered — less than full citizens when it comes to — their legal rights — then — for me, I think it — it just has tipped the scales in that direction.”)
Portman ought to be able to recognize that, even if he changed his mind on gay marriage owing to personal experience, the logic stands irrespective of it: Support for gay marriage would be right even if he didn’t have a gay son. There’s little sign that any such reasoning has crossed his mind.
In a CNN interview, Dana Bash repeatedly prodded Portman to reconcile his previous opposition to gay rights (which extended not only to marriage but also to not getting fired for being gay). He repeatedly confessed that it all came down to his own family: But you know, what happened to me is really personal. I mean, I hadn't thought a lot about this issue. Again, my focus has been on other issues over my public policy career…
What would Portman say to gay constituents who may be glad he's changing his position on gay marriage, but also wondering why it took having a gay son to come around to supporting their rights? "Well, I would say that, you know, I've had a change of heart based on a personal experience. That's certainly true," he responded with a shoulder shrug.
But he also repeated a reality. His policy focus has been almost exclusively on economic issues.
"Now it's different, you know. I hadn't expected to be in this position. But I do think, you know, having spent a lot of time thinking about it and working through this issue personally that, you know, this is where I am, for reasons that are consistent with my political philosophy, including family values, including being a conservative who believes the family is a building block of society, so I'm comfortable there now."
It’s pretty simple. Portman went along with his party’s opposition to gay marriage because it didn’t affect him. He thought about gay rights the way Paul Ryan thinks about health care. And he still obviously thinks about most issues the way Paul Ryan thinks about health care.
That Portman turns out to have a gay son is convenient for the gay-rights cause. But why should any of us come away from his conversion trusting that Portman is thinking on any issue about what’s good for all of us, rather than what’s good for himself and the people he knows?
Thank you. Yes it is. I remember Bill Cosby once saying that if your child doesn't, at some point in their childhood, hate you; you are not doing your job.
I did my job; and, those times when I had to say no, or I had to step in and discipline them for something they had done were hard things to do. I love my children. But, they needed to learn that they can't just do anything, or have everything.
I want to see people publicly ask idiots like this what other sex practices deserve governmental legislation/acceptance? Why should a Homosexual get special recognition and not a hetro foot fetishist or someone into BDSM?
That is a serious question that when answered, would show the utter stupidity of the situation.
Hey....why not THREE people MARRIED??? Why not marry your DOG or CAT??? Really....Portman is DEAD to me....I always thought he was kind of EFFEMINATE but I liked him.....ugh....he;s just like a DEMOCRAT!!
Is there a plague of homosexuality going on, or is the culture turning otherwise normal kids into homosexuals?
Amazing huh?
When one supports the same issues as a Democrat, one IS a democrat. It’s one thing to say I think we should support green power (a dem issue). That can be argued as conservative or not. But Homosexualizing the country is no little issue. It’s 100% dem and a foundational one of humanity.
He and most of the GOP are in reality Dems. And people who support Dems and Dem issues ARE dems. Regardless of what they call themselves on the internet.
Exactly.
Basically the message is, 'Your soul is worthless to me. I'd rather have the accolades of the world that will commend my tolerance, and a smile from my son today -- even though an eternity in hell awaits the unrepentant sinner.'
That is not love, it is the epitome of selfishness and hate for lost souls.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Traditional Values Coalition president Andrea Lafferty issued the following statement in reaction to Ohio Senator Rob Portman's recent repudiation of his stance against gay marriage in reaction to his son's homosexual preferences: These past few days have been very painful ones for me.
Earlier this week one of my children came to me and told me something which was shocking.
He is a drunk driver and has been driving drunk regularly since college.
I have taken several days to reflect on this and I have decided to reverse my earlier opposition to drunk driving.
My child is a drunk driver and I love him. It is a part of his identity, who he is.
I have reflected on all of this, consulted Scripture (the story of Jesus changing water into wine when the wedding he was attending in Cana ran dry is particularly relevant) and decided that drunk driving is a generational issue. Younger people take a much different view of drunk driving than older people.
Therefore, today I am reversing my opposition to drunk driving. My child has caused me to revisit a decision which, up until now, had been based simply on morality.
(snip)
http://traditionalvalues.org/content/home/36644/a_painful_admission
All of these politicans grasping for votes overlook the fact that this is perversion. It is unnatural! They don’t seem to care that they are exposing the people to something that is not normal.
DISGUSTING! Rob Portman is DISGUSTING!!! WHo the HELL wants to know that his son is a QUEER doing ABNORMAL, IMMORAL ACTS to ANOTHER GUY???????DISGUSTING....
Excellent!
Good bye, Rob. May God have mercy on your soul.
Just remember the disgust you feel right at this second the next time you see a fellow Freeper say we have to vote for moderates to win. Because THIS is what we ‘win’.
Why not a sixteen-year-old, or a ten-year-old?
If Portman's son was "born" a pedophile, then wouldn't it be only loving and fatherly to wish the son to find happiness with some sweet, obliging teen (which, in keeping with most of the 'gays' I know, Portman's son probably already has,if only while he himself was a teen)?
Speaking of which. Every male homosexual I know has issues with his daddy--he was mean, he was cold, he just wasn't there, etc. etc.
And every homosexual woman I know loathes, or at least at one time loathed, her mother--couldn't please her, couldn't measure up, and so on.
Obviously I don't know all the homos in the world. But through work and simply life I have known and, frankly, befriended a bunch of them.
My hunch is that Portman is NOT only finding his inner gay parentalness...he also has a closet-full of guilt over being a piss-poor dad.
When will he be announcing his resignation?
I’m sure his constituents voted for and wished to represented by his Gay Son.
That kid is a hell of a campaigner
TT
Bingo....or Rob is LIMP wristed himself!!!
Or had a domineering mother and an uninvolved/absent dad who didn't 'protect' her from an abusive mother.
All along he has said his faith is why he was against gay marriage. So, obviously he lost his faith. But the truth of the matter is he looks and acts a little light in the loafers himself.
When a child is not restrained by moral or ethical principles there is a real threat of blackmail such as a family tell all book. Not something a public figure wants to see happen.
Portman was a solid pro-life, pro-gun, pro-marriage type congressman here in Ohio’s 2d district. He NEVER would have been elected if he hadn’t been absolutely conservative.
My own sense is that the gay son story doesn’t wash. There’s truth and there’s familial good feelings.
He’s saying that truth changes to accommodate good feelings.
Next thing we know he’ll be “weeping George Voinovich” talking about being a democrat.
Moreover, I would say that he is sentencing his son to death. Truly sad that conservatives love his son more than the boy’s own dad does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.