Sen. Rob Portman Now Supports Gay Marriage

Alpha Echo said:

I think the OP can't be anything BUT a good thing. Seriously.

Click to expand...

only homophobes or ideologues whose primary agenda is to carry water for democrats and who lament the potential loss of a wedge issue would disagree.

Medievalist said:

Senator Portman has given his reasons for changing his mind:

Originally Posted by Senator Portman
“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.”

Click to expand...

You'll notice that Senator Portman, like President Obama, feels compelled to bring up the issue of monogamy; that's one of the eye-rolling things for me, because it's a hat-tip to the assumption that same-sex relationships are All About Booty Calls, and you know, free-range sexual harvests.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it's a subtle dig at the reality of the hetero divorce rate. *dunno*

But yeah, what Medi said.

I'm glad for him, and I'm glad for the GLBT community. Equality is an uphill battle, but this is progress.

To imply realizations evolved from someone's personal life are of less worth, or somehow tarnished, or to belittle said evolution because it wasn't catalyzed by some divine empathy/inspiration/complete and total social awareness, is ridiculous to me. The point is change is happening, and that's a good thing. It's not suprising to me that it took a gay son for Portman to realize GLBT aren't 'other,' or that DOMA is oppressive to many people. It's about exposure, and subsequent removal of preconceived notions. (Somewhat similarly, I recently read an article (searching for it now) that illustrated politicians with daughters were more likely to have feministic views: exposure and a removal of the 'other' ideology at work.)

Politicians are people too, after all. Like it or not, they're just like the rest of us, but with a bigger platform.

William Haskins said:

only homophobes or ideologues whose primary agenda is to carry water for democrats republicans and who lament the potential loss of a wedge issue would disagree.

Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya.

"Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot."

Sen. Marco Rubio (Republican-Florida) speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference

nighttimer said:

Sen. Marco Rubio (Republican-Florida) speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference

Click to expand...

That was Dianne Feinsteins argument against DOMA too. She didn't vote against it for believing in same-sex marriage, but because it interferred with states rights.

So, she dug her fingers into the bullet holes of Harvey Milk, and then went to Washington and supported the "one man one woman"-marriage, but didn't want to interfere with the states because they owned the issue.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/California/Dianne_Feinstein/Views/Gay_Marriage/

The problem with Democrats is... they don't do anything until the political winds allow them to. Feinstein is the perfect example of that.

Speaking against the legislation, Senator Feinstein stated that she defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but that violence and poverty were greater threats to the family than the definition of marriage. While she agreed with the legislation in principle, she stated that she opposed it on two grounds with the first being that it was an over-reach of federal power and the second being that it was not necessary.

Click to expand...

ETA-
No, that's not entirely right. Democrats are likely to run the other ways as well if it is politically expedient, which we saw with the Clinton-administrations handling of both DOMA and DADT. Right now a Democrat is a co-sponsor of the Tenneesee bill that will allow councellors and psychologists to deny mental health care to LGBT if they have strong religious objections "to the lifestyle".

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/ten..._to_deny_gay_students_mental_health_services/

nighttimer said:

Fixed that for ya.

"Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot."

Sen. Marco Rubio (Republican-Florida) speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference

Click to expand...

and one could argue that the president's view (shared with rubio) that states should decide enables that bigotry.

I certainly don't condemn Portman for how his views have changed. I think it would have been better if he'd been able to feel empathy for LGBT people without a personal connection, but realistically, being exposed to people who are different than them can be a major way for people to question their views and prejudices. That isn't a bad thing. And I agree with those who have said that the important thing is that his views have apparently changed.

I also think it took some bravery for him to publicly change his stance. That should be recognized.

At the same time, however, I don't think that having empathy for others and supporting their rights is something that should have to be applauded. I don't feel grateful toward Portman. I'm glad for him, his family, and his constituents that he's changed his mind, but he's not doing LGBT people a favor. He's giving them what's right and what he owes them as an elected official. It's like being grateful to your landlord for finally getting your kitchen sink fixed after you'd asked several times.

When I was younger, I believed some things that I'm ashamed of now. I don't feel like I did something wonderful by changing my mind, or that I deserve props for it. I certainly don't expect people to feel grateful to me. If anything, I should be the one who feels grateful to others.

"It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son" -- CCR

Click to expand...

... no wait, I am. As are we all!

Maybe it's a bit cynical of me, but I don't assume he's changed his beliefs, just that he will now vote another way. It seems to me he wants *his son* to be able to marry, his son who happens to be gay. I don't assume he suddenly cares about any other member of the LGBT community or that he is no longer a bigot.

I agree it is a net good, but also don't feel obligated to applaud him for not being a horrible person. I don't expect cookies for not being a bigot, no one should expect them if they suddenly decide to stop being one—or to at least stop voting like one.

RichardGarfinkle said:

I'm glad he came to this conclusion, but apparently he did so because his son is gay and he suddenly realized that his son would be missing out on things that his other children could have (like marriage).

I don't like the idea that a Senator has so little awareness of what people's lives are like that he needed an event in his own life because he could realize the impact of these laws.

Anyone in that position of power who can't see beyond the narrow circumstances of his or her own life is probably not fit for the job.

Click to expand...

Perfectly sums up my view on this topic. My friend's son recently came out to her and her husband. It has changed how she views marriage equality but I'm surprised she couldn't have had more empathy before she had a personal connection. It was something we had disagreed on for years.

Let me add that when I first heard of the issue several years ago, my initial view from a hertosexual perspective was, "Of course marriage is between one man and one woman, duh." I thought having civil legal rights of partnership was fair and just, and should be enough for anyone in a same sex partnership. But I heard someone eloquently speak on TV why civil partnership rights aren't the same, and what it would mean to him as a gay person to be able to marry the person he loved. Changed my perspective immeadiately. I felt, how dare "I" define what is and isn't a relationship worthy of a marital commitment.

I find myself wondering if Portman's change of position is an actual change of heart, and more sophisticated than it's being viewed. I'm certainly willing to believe that it's a shallow "well, I still support injustice, but not when it affects my family." But there's also a possibility that Portman had a particular notion of what homosexuality is, what it means, where it comes from; he tried to fit his son into that view, and it didn't work; he came to realize that view is incorrect, and that the injustices it supports are in fact not supported by anything.

missesdash said:

Maybe it's a bit cynical of me, but I don't assume he's changed his beliefs, just that he will now vote another way. It seems to me he wants *his son* to be able to marry, his son who happens to be gay. I don't assume he suddenly cares about any other member of the LGBT community or that he is no longer a bigot.

I agree it is a net good, but also don't feel obligated to applaud him for not being a horrible person. I don't expect cookies for not being a bigot, no one should expect them if they suddenly decide to stop being one—or to at least stop voting like one.

Click to expand...

True, but change isn't easy.

If your grow up with a certain belief, it's hard to really change that belief and sometimes it does take a up front and personal moment to really reevaluate you're belief system.

Everyone is capable of change, but very few people do.

missesdash said:

I agree it is a net good, but also don't feel obligated to applaud him for not being a horrible person. I don't expect cookies for not being a bigot, no one should expect them if they suddenly decide to stop being one—or to at least stop voting like one.

Click to expand...

Yep, this I show I feel.

And I know that change can be difficult for a lot of people, if they've had a particular prejudice ingrained in them for a long time. But you can say the same thing about a lot of negative beliefs and behaviors. Making an effort to change should definitely be respected, but it doesn't mean you deserve applause for it.

DancingMaenid said:

Yep, this I show I feel.

And I know that change can be difficult for a lot of people, if they've had a particular prejudice ingrained in them for a long time. But you can say the same thing about a lot of negative beliefs and behaviors. Making an effort to change should definitely be respected, but it doesn't mean you deserve applause for it.

Click to expand...

And that's what I'm saying. I don't mean to say that they should a rousing ovation for their change, but that they be acknowledged and respected.

clintl said:

In the end, Hawaii never did this, but a states rights argument like the one Feinstein used to oppose DOMA was a very reasonable argument to use in opposition to it, and likely had a much better chance of success than the more "pure" argument people here, 17 years later in a very different political atmosphere, seem to condemning Feinstein for not using. I think that's an unreasonable criticism of Feinstein.

Click to expand...

Politicians have to make judgements all the time about how to best achieve their ends. Those who stay "pure" are those who become ineffective and never get anything done.

Give me someone who can count votes and craft a bill that makes things better, if not perfect, every time over someone who stands on principle and insists on all or nothing, and thus never manages to change anything at all.

... well there was Mr. Smith.

When a person learns something on an extremely personal level, they tend to learn it very well, because they experience it very deeply--even painfully--and as a result, may be able to apply their new awareness to other scenarios in the future.

I do applaud him, because there are too many who are still like he was and refuse to alter their views--even for their own kids. Let alone announce it to the country and risk losing political supporters. He's a positive example of change for many, imo.

William Haskins said:

and one could argue that the president's view (shared with rubio) that states should decide enables that bigotry.

Click to expand...

What a coincidence. That's Portman's position too.

The process of citizens persuading fellow citizens is how consensus is built and enduring change is forged. That’s why I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.

Click to expand...

We got to take things slowly. Can't rush things along now. We need a little "all deliberate speed" and all that jazz.

Tell me again how enlightened Robbie's courageous stance is. Seems to be lined up right along with Rubio and Obama's.

Since that nasty little fact gets in the way of this slobbering love affair over the ONE and ONLY ONE Republican Senator out of 45 to come out in support of same-sex marriage, we can't have that.

If I look at things on an individual level, I can feel happy at and grateful for and proud of individual realization and change.

When I'm reminded that our individual freedoms hinge on waiting for people to finally get to their long overdue realizations and changes, I get pissed off.

Thanks a lot nighttimer.

Too much government is at fault, imo. Government (society) should not have a say in who gets married and what special treatments "approved" marriages are entitled to. This is where so-called democracy fails, because its premise is that everyone gets a vote on how people are allowed to conduct their personal lives. Government should simply protect individuals from being subjected to such a vote.

ETA: then again, being as that we have, and seem to be stuck with, the system that we do, I AM hopeful that things are really getting better with LGBT rights. Baby steps forward are better than nothing.

I know this seems like storytime with Bloo, but let me share another story about how my views changed re: things because of a personal connection.

For years I lived in a small Kansas town (I still live in a small Kansas town but not as small.) Our chief rivals was school about 45 minutes away. This town had a large Hispanic population, so certain members of my school started calling it "S**cland". I never thought about what "s**c" meant, never even really connected it to Hispanics. I just thought it was funny. I used it one day in front of my mom and she got mad, but calmly asked me (I was about...13, 14 at the time) how I would feel if somebody called my baby brother (adopted from Guatemala) a "s**c" and explained to me that it was akin to calling a black person a "n****r" (ironically we adopted a little girl of African-American descent years later). Changed my whole perspective and got after anyone who used any kind of racial terminology (even when I was in my crazy Rush is Right stage, I was very pro-immigration) or showed a hint of racism toward my brother and sister. Racial injustice took root in me. Now it took another 6-8 years for me to really embrace rights for homosexuals, but that's part of my growing, evolving nature. I knew growing up that racism was wrong, but I never really connected to WHY it was wrong, until I had a personal connection.

Yes it's a great when someone doesn't have to have to have a personal epiphany or connection to see the forest for the trees, but I think it helps and, as someone said above, makes them a much more vigorous and outspoken supporter of that issue.

Chrissy said:

Too much government is at fault, imo. Government (society) should not have a say in who gets married and what special treatments "approved" marriages are entitled to.

Click to expand...

I think you are looking at this backwards.

Government did not invent marriage, nor take it over. It simply codified the civil aspects of it, which in a structured society has to be done. When a married couple splits up, who is legally responsible for the kids? What happens to the shared money and property? In what ways are the partied to the marriage separately responsible for accrued mutual debts?

There was a time where women were not even allowed to have bank accounts. There was a time when the idea of a black person running a city, much less a country, with power over white people as well as black would have been unthinkable. There was a time when the idea of gay people getting married would have been laughable.

Not because the government forbade it. But because 95% of society accepted these things as proper and natural.

It was the government who insisted that black people be given the same rights as white people. It was the government that actually sent in troops to enforce that in some southern states.

Gay rights have lagged, but they are catching up. Private businesses used to be able to fire someone if they found out they were gay. Landlords could refuse to rent to gay people. Straight people could beat up gay people with no consequences, much like white people at one time could assualt blacks with impunity.

Attitudes have changed -- but it's government intervention that has made the real difference. Sure, government can be overbearing and exasperating sometimes. But without the mechanism of government, esp the much maligned federal government, minorities would have no rights and no protection.

Elaine Margarett said:

Let me add that when I first heard of the issue several years ago, my initial view from a hertosexual perspective was, "Of course marriage is between one man and one woman, duh." I thought having civil legal rights of partnership was fair and just, and should be enough for anyone in a same sex partnership. But I heard someone eloquently speak on TV why civil partnership rights aren't the same, and what it would mean to him as a gay person to be able to marry the person he loved. Changed my perspective immeadiately. I felt, how dare "I" define what is and isn't a relationship worthy of a marital commitment.

Click to expand...

You're not alone in this. There are plenty of people who are capable of empathy, who take the status quo for granted until they hear someone's personal story and see the implications and and think, "hey, the way they're treated isn't right. I never thought about it that way."

As I said, I'm always glad to see a person change, but when the only thing that can push them to change is when it directly affects them I'm not impressed.

Chrissy said:

If I look at things on an individual level, I can feel happy at and grateful for and proud of individual realization and change.

When I'm reminded that our individual freedoms hinge on waiting for people to finally get to their long overdue realizations and changes, I get pissed off.

Thanks a lot nighttimer.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Chrissy. I hate to be the one to throw a damper on the "Yay! Rob Portman Sez the Gays Can Get Married" narrative, but this isn't the profile in courage it could have been.

It’s becoming positively fashionable for Republicans who no longer think they have a shot at national office to drop their opposition to gay marriage.

Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, was one of dozens of Republicans who signed a legal brief for the Supreme Court on the subject, executing a neat about face from his presidential run just last year, when he was opposed to gay marriage.


Now comes Senator Rob Portman, who also was a possible vice presidential nominee in 2012, and has long been an opponent of same-sex marriage. (In 1999, he even voted against allowing same-sex couples in Washington, D.C., to adopt children.) But he says he’s gained a new perspective, which came from his son telling him that he is gay – two years ago.



“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have — to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Mr. Portman told reporters, according to Cleveland.com.


Mr. Portman now says that Congress should repeal parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, a clearly unconstitutional law for which Mr. Portman voted when he was in the House in 1996.
DOMA is the subject of one of two cases that are now before the Supreme Court on gay marriage. The other one seeks to overturn California’s proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.


In what Cleveland.com described as a “carefully orchestrated” public change of heart, Mr. Portman said that he and his wife were surprised to learn their son was gay but that they “were 100 percent supportive.” Supportive enough to tell the Romney campaign that his son was gay, but not supportive enough to back off his public opposition to equal rights for gay people while he was under consideration for the V.P. slot.

Click to expand...

Portman could have signed on to the brief supporting same-sex marriage that other Republicans, including two current House members have, but he didn't.

Everyone was wondering why Romney chose Paul Ryan over Portman as his vice-president when it was obvious Portman could have helped Romney in the critical state of Ohio (you know, that place that when it was declared for Obama and ended Election Night sent Karl Rove into such a frenzy he tried to eat his own foot).

Now we know why. Ryan didn't have a gay son.

Charles P. Pierce shares my skepticism about Portman's break from the Gang of 45.

If Will hadn't come out, or if he'd been as straight as Nebraska highway, Portman wouldn't have cared about the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of all the other Dads who love them and want them to have the same opportunities? It's not just the implied notion that discrimination is OK unless it inconveniences Sunday dinner with the Portmans. It's also the relentless banality through which even "decent" Republicans struggle to come to simple humanity. Does any group of people have dark nights of the soul that are so endlessly boring and transparently insincere?

It's like listening to Kierkegaard sell flatware. I'm glad there's another vote for marriage equality here. I'm also glad I didn't have to listen to the full explanation behind it.

Click to expand...

Me too and frankly I don't get why I should give Rob Portman credit for doing what he's supposed to do.

It's wonderful and terrific that Rob has decided to stop discriminating against a group of people. But am I supposed to bake him some cookies too?

Bake him some of those Special Brownies and maybe he'll "evolve" on some other issues as well.

rugcat said:

Gay rights have lagged, but they are catching up. Private businesses used to be able to fire someone if they found out they were gay. Landlords could refuse to rent to gay people. Straight people could beat up gay people with no consequences, much like white people at one time could assualt blacks with impunity.

Click to expand...

They may be catching up, but in much of the U.S. private businesses can still fire someone if they so much as think they're gay, landlords can still refuse to rent to gay people. Straight people still beat up gay people.

I would love to see this in the past tense as you've written it, but we're not there yet.