Sen. Rob Portman Now Supports Gay Marriage

Meanwhile, back on the Rob Portman "significant degree of influence and visibility" beat, the ripple effects of his coming out for same-sex marriage is rumbling through the Republican establishment!

Responding to a question from Raddatz about Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) change of heart following the revelation that his own son was gay, Boehner said that he could appreciate his close friend’s decision but remained adamant that marriage “is a union of a man and a woman”:

MARTHA RADDATZ (HOST): Can you imagine yourself in a situation where you reversed your decision as Portman has on gay marriage if a child of yours or someone you love told you they were gay.
JOHN BOEHNER: Listen, I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what i believe, it’s what my church teaches me and I can’t imagine that position would ever change.
​

Click to expand...

Well, maybe it takes a little time to kick in...

Hillary Clinton Evolves

Perhaps she decided to do this before another Republican does:
Hillary Clinton Endorses Same-Sex Marriage
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/hillary-clinton-endorses-same-sex-marriage/

Don said:

On leaving office, Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed that the highest office in the state left him addicted to its power.

Power over others is the one drug I'd like to see taken off the street, yet it's deemed the least harmful and most valuable of them all.

Click to expand...

... from your previous thread:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. -- Thoreau

Click to expand...

... always had great respect for Henry.
If he says so than maybe it's so.

For me in general I really don't have a lot of set opinions.
Even though I may come across like that at times.
What you have to say is interesting and what others who are in opposition have to say is interesting. And if it was my guess I'd say the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle of all those different outlooks. So they're all important in their own way. And it's good they're being expressed. That shouldn't be discouraged, though of course debate is FINE.

rugcat said:

Don has it all covered.

The main problem is that only horrible, morally deficient people have any interest in gaining positions of power.

In the rare case of someone who actually seeks power to do good, they are inevitably corrupted and become evil.

No wonder he thinks everyone should be allowed to carry a gun.

Click to expand...

No, I don't necessarily believe they are horrible or necessarily morally deficient. I believe they have a profound mental illness and should be locked away from polite society until they can learn to control their impulses, just as we do with thieves who don't claim their authority through some shiny badge or funny hat.

We as individuals certainly shouldn't be catering to the delusions of a whole group of people who claim that historical precedent and some "social contract" which no one has ever seen or signed gives them the power to rule the rest of us, and our only recourse is to step into a booth from time to time and pick whom among that group gets to lead the gang of pillagers.

There's an upside to allowing this "impolite fiction" to proceed unabated, however. Frederick Bastiat expressed it long, long ago.

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

Click to expand...

The problem with an entitlement-based society is that sooner or later, those providing the resources to satisfy others' entitlements realize the truth in Bastiat's statement and choose to no longer be suckers in the con game.

One day, those who believe in government will be regarded with the same quaint amusement reserved for flat-earthers today.

ETA: Ken's Thoreau quote falls right in line with what I'm saying here. Thanks, Ken.

One problem I have with your predictable derails, Don, is that even if you're totally right and government is this evil big bad let loosed upon the earth to destroy us all, when you have big problems — even those created by big government itself — that don't offer any kind of profitable incentive for people with the resources to solve it to solve it, who fixes those problems? No one. I'm not very comfortable with that.

rugcat said:

Don has it all covered.

The main problem is that only horrible, morally deficient people have any interest in gaining positions of power.

In the rare case of someone who actually seeks power to do good, they are inevitably corrupted and become evil.

No wonder he thinks everyone should be allowed to carry a gun.

Click to expand...

-----

"Only horrible, morally deficient people have..."

How do you define "morally deficient"? Would it be someone who did not share your views, say, on gay marriage or interracial marriage, or would it be someone who favored a free market versus a more managed one?

I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, at least in your concept that many pols do inevitably become corrupted to a degree. I'm just wondering by what criteria you profess to judge people as horrible and morally deficient.

(Not being snarky, just wishing for some clarification as you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat with the "only" and then "in the rare case" remark).

kuwisdelu said:

I can get behind the addiction analogy.

I wouldn't say drugs themselves corrupt anyone, but addiction can definitely bring out the worst parts of you.

Click to expand...

kuwisdelu said:

And some people can use drugs responsibly and without getting addicted.

Click to expand...

Not likely if you use them every day.

Using that analogy, I guess the question is, do politicians limit themselves to using their power once a week? Or maybe just an occasional binge?

J.S.F. said:

(Not being snarky, just wishing for some clarification as you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat with the "only" and then "in the rare case" remark).

Click to expand...

If you had followed the thread, it should be clear that I am stating what I see as Don's position, which I find laughably simplistic and wrong.

(Although he prefers the term "profound mental illness" to "morally deficient.")

Don said:

One day, those who believe in government will be regarded with the same quaint amusement reserved for flat-earthers today

Click to expand...

I don't have to wait. I already regard certain types of opinions with exactly that same quaint amusement,

I just want to add that Boehner is a an arrogant self-righteous asshole. I don't give a fuck what he thinks, what he grew up with, what he was taught by his church, etc. etc. (If that's what you think/believe, Boehner, then don't marry another man. DUH.)

Pompous control-freak jerkface shithead.



That is all.

nighttimer said:

Meanwhile, back on the Rob Portman "significant degree of influence and visibility" beat, the ripple effects of his coming out for same-sex marriage is rumbling through the Republican establishment!

Well, maybe it takes a little time to kick in...

Click to expand...

yeah, just ask bob casey and claire macaskill and tim caine and john tester and mark warner...

William Haskins said:

yeah, just ask bob casey and claire macaskill and tim caine and john tester and mark warner...

Click to expand...

You mean Claire McCaskill, Tim Kaine and Jon Tester? I wouldn't want to get them mixed up with who-the-fuck-ever those folks are you name-checked.

You left Joe Manchin off the list of Dems Not Down for Gay Marriage. A momentary brain fart, I'm sure. You might be able to find a few more. Mary Landrieu or Tim Johnson, perhaps?

You also left out that two-thirds of Democrats support same-sex marriage. The majority of Republicans oppose it and the margin isn't close.

Which leaves Senators Alexander, Ayotte, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Burr, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cochran, Collins, Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Cruz, Enzi, Fischer, Flake, Graham, Grassley, Hatch, Heller, Hoeven, Inhoffe, Isakson, Johans, Johnson, Kirk, Lee, McCain, McConnell, Moran, Murkowski, Paul, Risch, Roberts, Rubio, Scott, Sessions, Shelby, Thune, Toomey, Vitter and Wicker against same-sex marriage and Portman for it.

That's some mighty "significant degree of influence and visibility" going on there.

Oh, and you have Rob's back. You're not a U.S. Senator, but you'll have to do.

yes, that's them. sorry for the misspellings.