Posted on 04/05/2013 9:09:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
CINCINNATI — No one heckled Senator Rob Portman during his first appearance before thousands of Ohioans since becoming the most prominent elected Republican in the country to endorse same-sex marriage.
“Wouldn’t you say,” he said, turning to his wife, Jane, after marching in an opening day parade for the Cincinnati Reds on Monday, “that most of the comments were thank yous and thumbs up and ‘You did the right thing’?”
True, but for some of the Ohioans who acknowledged Mr. Portman, doubts flickered below the surface. “Senator!” said one spectator, Pete Kidnocker, reaching out to shake Mr. Portman’s hand. But after Mr. Portman passed, Mr. Kidnocker said he would vote for an alternative in a Republican primary and accused the senator of “betraying his principles.”
“If you’re a Christian and you believe in those principles, whether your son or daughter is a homosexual, you can’t change your principles,” he said.
Mr. Portman’s reversal of his long-held opposition to same-sex marriage — he said it was spurred by a son’s disclosure that he is gay — has intensified and quickened debate over the issue here in his home state. Though his shift has been welcomed by gay rights advocates as an example of how a family’s love can change minds, social conservatives have denounced Mr. Portman and vowed to block his re-election.
“I totally respect their point of view,” Mr. Portman said of his opponents. “I held it until not too long ago.”
One impact of Mr. Portman’s change of heart has been to fuel a movement seeking the repeal of a constitutional amendment in Ohio that bans same-sex marriage, according to the group leading the effort, FreedomOhio.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Dang! I didn’t even think about this yesterday when the GOP called. The poor guy still got a good earful though!
““If you’re a Christian and you believe in those principles, whether your son or daughter is a homosexual, you can’t change your principles,” he said.”
I don’t think that is true.... while there is no way I’d respect a gay marriage, I would respect the validity of a civil union that is typically done for financial reasons.
I hate mixing a religious term, like marriage, in a political argument. If the republicans were smart they would rally for civil unions and rise above the “gay” issue.
More proof that “Conservative” and “Republican” are not synonymous..
not true.... it is proof that “Social Conservative” and “Republican” are not necessarily synonymous..
still thinking we have a some hope on the fiscal side.
RE: I would respect the validity of a civil union that is typically done for financial reasons.
OK, here’s a question -— Would Christian Businesses like Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby or Christian Hospitals and Institutions that take Biblical Principles seriously be FORCED to pay for the benefits of the “better half” of the civil union if they were to have a gay employee?
Here’s another question — Will Christian Businesses be FORCED to cater to gay weddings or “civil union” ceremonies when they don’t want to?
Senator Portman, Your son is not gay. He is a homosexual. If he were feeling gay, he would be happy.
Happy with thousands of years of human norms instead of trying to change those norms to include the deviant behaviour of homosexuals.
“Will Christian Businesses be FORCED to cater to gay weddings or “civil union” ceremonies when they don’t want to?”
Good question... but I don’t think any business should be forced to do anything they don’t want to do. Just like any person shouldn’t be forced to provide a service they don’t want to. If a business wants to discriminate they can... and probably already do.
On the question on employee fairness that’s tougher, but really businesses already force employees into healthy lifestyles. I would think businesses can make those choices.
It would be alot easier for business to say we will provide benefits to married people but not to civil unions, than to change the definition of marriage. We can then talk about the right for government to regulate business practices rather than talk about my church saying a marriage between homosexuals or whatever is the same as hetrosexuals.
Marriage is a religious term.
Well, if the answer to my question is ‘NO’, there will be no coercion against one’s religious beliefs, then I am all FOR whatever gays want to do with their lives.
Businesses should be FREE to recognize of NOT recognize such unions.
I just want this FORMALIZED INTO LAW — Call it the ‘Defense of Religious Beliefs Act’ (DORBA).
And so it goes....
You do realize that you don’t really support traditional marriage, do you?
RE: If he were feeling gay, he would be happy.
There used to be a time when the word ‘gay’ was a non-controversial word.
Remember the Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers film — THE GAY DIVORCE? ( now people will wink with a title like that ).
How about the great soul singer — Marvin Gaye?
Can we still sing the song on Christmas — DON WE NOW OUR GAY APPAREL FA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA — without people snickering?
Can I still feel “happy and gay” today without a homo being sweet on me?
He’s a marshmallow Christian. He values don’t stand up to a little heat.
Is Portman’s son a gun grabber, the kind with bullets in it? Is Portman’s son for amnesty? Is Portman’s son in favor of higher taxes? More government? Killing unborn babies? These have now become very important questions one would think.
We need to stop the left from stealing the meaning of the English language. We aleady have a word for what a homosexual is.
I’m tired of the Left using terms like whistles, undocumented immigrants (or what ever illegal aliens are called now), urban, Chicago, on and on to say that people who those words are racist or otherwise unjust, mean or ignorant.
“Businesses should be FREE to recognize of NOT recognize such unions.”
I’m good with that.. businesses like people should be free to act in their own best interest.
“You do realize that you don’t really support traditional marriage, do you?”
Not true... I support marriage between a man and woman only... and I really don’t care how you define a civil union.
If the government wants to regulate / unregulate laws for civil unions that is a different discussion. But I believe all government documents that mention marriage should be changed unless they really want to reference a Holy Sacrament in the law.
If the government wants to recognize a union between you and your dog and cat I don’t care. But the government should not and can not define a religious term meaning a holy union between a man and woman, and the republicans should call that distinction out, and then offer the solution.
He will be primaries and he is lying about the reaction.No one around here likes his reversal and since the constitutional amendment passed at better than 65% just 3 years ago I doug that they will be able to over turn it.
Auto correct sorry....He will be primaried out and he is lying about the reaction.No one around here likes his reversal and since the constitutional amendment passed at better than 65% just 3 years ago I doubt that they will be able to over turn it.
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.