Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Rob Portman Comes Out…

March 15th, 2013 - 9:40 am

…in favor of gay marriage. Good on ya, Senator:

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman, a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, said on Friday he now believes gays have a right to marry after learning two years ago that his son is gay.

Portman, who was on the short list to be 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s running mate, made the announcement in an opinion piece in an Ohio newspaper and gave interviews on his change of heart.

“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote in an op-ed piece in the Columbus Dispatch, titled “The Freedom to Marry.”

Indeed.

The “problem” as I see it — and I put “problem” in quotes because I don’t really see it as one — is how to integrate gays into the broader American experience. They’re out, they’re proud, and they should be. Nobody is forcing anybody back into any closet, or re-criminalizing anyone’s love life, without instituting an authoritarian kind of religious state that is antithetical to American values and liberties.

But legalizing gay marriage isn’t quite the answer. Let me explain.

The vile progs want to institute gay marriage also, but not because of any love or concern for gays. Watch how easily and cruelly they throw around accusations that so-and-so is a [UNPRINTABLE WORD FOR GAY] or a [ANOTHER UNPRINTABLE WORD FOR GAY] and you’ll see what I mean. No, for the progressive left, gay marriage is just another club for beating America’s churches into submission to the State. First Catholic birth control, then Baptist gay marriage, and so on. Progressivism is a truly jealous god and will have no other gods before it — not even yours.

Instead, the proper course is to abolish marriage as a government institution. Civil unions for all who want them, gay or straight, for legal purposes of wills, benefits, hospital visitations, etc. But leave marriage where it originated: With the churches. My church will proudly marry gay couples, maybe yours won’t. But no one will be forced to do or recognize anything they don’t want to. Everyone’s rights are protected; everyone’s liberties are respected.

And, oh yeah, the vile progs lose a big battle in their war against freedom of expression.

How’s that for a win-win-win?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Except that California is a fine example of WHY that won't work anymore. The activists neither understand nor accept the word NO!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Portman did not come out in favor of "making all marriages civil unions and leaving 'marriage' to the churches." He came out in favor of inventing a new form of marriage and pretending it is the same as the traditional one.

Perhaps there is a argument which justifies that; if so, I have not heard it. Nobody has yet explained how calling a dog's tail a leg makes it anything other than a tail.

The post here the other day vilifying someone named Kincaid as a hatey hater for pointing out a very few of the ugly truths in the history of the gay-rights movement entirely glossed over the fact that Kincaid was telling the truth; the gay-rights movement is a communist-founded movement which openly announced, in its modern (post-Stonewall) manifestation, its objective of destroying marriage.

Marriage is now that same movement's must-have. Civil unions were not enough; that is why the movement pushed for "marriage" in California when a comprehensive civil-union law was already in place. At at time when the Cloward-Pivening of society is so obvious in so many areas of society, when the concept of what the gay-rights movement calls "heteronormativity" is under attack on college campuses in various courses of study, why is it so difficult for some people to see that the push for same-sex marriage is merely another form of attack upon the nation's traditional social structures?

There have already been lawsuits by the "marriage" activists against businesses which have declined to be hired by them. The First Amendment has already been damaged by the redlining of unwelcome political discourse as "hate speech" which is the gay-rights movement's primary contribution the nation. Why are people who can clearly see that deficit spending is socially destructive so willfully blind to the gutting of the Bill of Rights under the rubric of "tolerance" which is the gay-rights movement's objective?

Like everyone else, I know at least one lovely same-sex couple whose marriage, in and of itself, is not going to shake the foundations of the nation. It is not, however, about them; it has never been. It is about a movement whose objective, openly stated from the beginning, has been to "transform society," just as it has been the objective of the Deficit-Spender-in-Chief. That lovely couple that we all know is merely the cover for this effort.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"No, for the progressive left, gay marriage is just another club for beating America’s churches into submission to the State."

Yes, exactly.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (94)
All Comments   (94)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Not quite win-win-win. How will my gay atheist friends get married? Moreover, how will I get married? I'm a straight atheist Republican.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"

Writing in the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, Rob Portman proves his credentials as a Good Republican.

When he found that his son is gay, he questioned his earlier opposition to gay marriage: “I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.”

And like David Cameron, he argues that he supposed gay marriage out of conservative principles rather than in defiance of them: “We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.”
Peter Leithart first things blog
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Rob Portman and men like him are why I lost interest in America, Nov. 7th, 2012. When America's lame party became a watered down version of America's deviant party, game over.

However, I've been able to conclude America's best days were long over before Nov. 6th, 2012. America's reelection of a feckless, petty and fascist thug was just confirmation that the coup de grace had happened a good twenty years before, perhaps longer.

It's actually been kind of liberating to not really give a damn anymore.

Here's to you Mr. Reagan, America turns its lonely eyes to you... woo hoo hoo.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
what you propose, stephen, is exactly what we have now. all 'marriages' are 'civil unions'. marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the vatican. there is no requirement for a religious ceremony to be legally 'married'...but if a couple would like to have their union blessed by a religious organization, some chuches will and some won't...just as catholics, for instance, are not forced to bless the marriages of jews or whomever. so let the state just start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as well as straight couples and that's that...'problem' solved.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To be or not to be...

that is the question.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What you are suggesting is basically what they currently do in France, and have been so doing for years. There are two ceremonies: Marriage Civil and Marriage Religeuse. So far as the Republique is concerned, only the civil ceremony counts. The other one is optional and between you and the church. France is a Catholic country. Without such a provision, Protestants wouldn't be able to marry. As it is, everyone is satisfied and can go about their lives. At least in the provinces, the mayor performs the civil ceremony at city hall, wearing a red, white and blue sash. It's quite a nice ceremony.

By the way, the word for a Protestant Church in French is 'Cult.' When Jim Jones did away with his followers, the Paris newspapers reported that the cults had all gone nuts and were committing suicide. All kinds of people at work came up to me very sympathetically and tried to comfort me because they knew the cults were our majority religion. Thus do misunderstandings occur.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So...lemme get this striaght. The small government, balanced budget party (and conservative ideology) thinks that using big government to license and regulate marriage ...is a good thing. The party and conservative ideology of personal freedom and liberty thinks that limiting the freedoms of others is a good thing. The small government party thinks that using government to punish Americans who are not like you is a good thing.

'Cause that's what most of you are saying, here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Social conservatives are statists -- wannabe totalitarians -- and the more this truth is exposed for what it is, the better.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I exposed it yesterday.

A couple of them admitted to me that they just don't accept the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, at least not when it applies to states.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dishonesty from sinz54.

I support a general seperation of Church and State, that is a seperation of ORGANIZATIONS. Not the radicalization of that idea into a separation of ideas that are derived from a religious tradition and governance/legislation. So I am a secularist....just not a radical secularist. But that is beside the point of what the 1rst Amendment Establishment Clause is and does as intended by those who wrote it and ratified it. It is clearly a Federalist Provision, which is a limitation on the US Federal Government and not a general principle of governance. Look to the State Constitutions (which preceded the ratification of the US Constittion)....and learn the truth, and not the revisionist historical narrative that you have been served up as historical truth by the Left.

But keep up the good work of pushing the Leftist line(ies), it will only get you more Radical Leftwing governance, which you claim to not want.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I just lose respect for Portman because most of the views I hold are irrespective of whether or not my kid, or family is affected. Maybe not irrespective (bad adj), but the gist is... I change my mind when "facts" I was unaware of come to the fore and, through logic, reason, or truth, cause me to change my views.
If his stance on gay marriage changed because someone he loves is gay; was it really a deeply held belief to begin with?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are few facts; mostly opinions. Lots of people here strongly believe that gay marriage and contraception etc are the hallmarks of the downfall of society via immorality. There's not a single shred of evidence to suggest that their opinion is even within shouting distance of reasonably derived, much less factual. And yet they see their own opinions as indisputable facts.

I read your post as simply bagging on Portman because he now holds a contrary opinion. "He is no longer of the body. Shun him."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Hedonistic Nihilism of Libertarianism will take our nation state and civilization down just as surely as the Vile Progs, just less fast.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
One need only look at the silence with regards to El Jefe's regime down in Cuba lobotomizing people engaging in homosexual activity (an not to long ago, I might add), to know that the issue isnt the issue (as David Horowitz put it). The issue is never the issue.

There are a whole host of useful idiots though, being played for chumps by the Professional Left.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All