Senator Portman comes out in favor for marriage equality (healthcare, party, abuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's too bad, though, that he couldn't come to that conclusion when it was other people being affected by the anti-marriage equality laws and that he waited until his own family was affected by it personally before having his own epiphany.
While I am also pleased that Senator Portman has had a 'change of heart', it has always bewildered me (though it should not) that people take strong stances on issues: until it affects him or her. It shows that their 'beliefs' are built on a foundation of sand.
Dick Cheney: the same boat as Senator Portman: since his daughter is gay, he likewise looks favorably on gay rights. If she were not gay, it is easy to suppose that he would be a firebrand against such rights.
In favor of assault weapons? Well, just until the person is shot. Then they propose all sorts of laws limiting access to guns.
There is an old saw concerning 'law and order' people: A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
I certainly witnessed some Washington politicians change their minds about the draft back in the late 1960s when their drop-out sons became eligible for the draft (to me it is no coincident that the WWII vets who numbered mightily in the House and Senate started having a change of heart when their own children began hitting draft age).
The problem, of course, is that the rights of gays, for example, should not be subject to a happenstance of a politicians' family member announcing their sexual orientation. A person's opinion should be based upon calm, reflective reasoning, including what the Constitution says.
I will say that I am glad that Senator Portman does not have, apparently, a strong, over-riding religious belief that would trump his son's announcement ("Son, you is going to heck!").
One of my relatives is of the same sort: utterly against any government assistance for anyone whatsoever, until he felt compelled to file for (and began receiving) Federal disability benefits. After some 20 years (he is now 55) of receiving such benefits he has obviously, long ago, received much more in payments than he ever paid in. How he panics whenever his case is up for review for possible cessation! How he howls about the blasted government daring to threaten his monthly payments! Yet, he is adamant about cutting off all assistant to the poor and elderly ("let them sink or swim!"). He also cares not about properly funding the VA, since he (eligible for treatment at such facilities) prefers his own private doctor. Since he is in his own private lifeboat, he can watch with detached amusement as others sink into the depths. I suppose that if his disability were to cease, and he had to file for welfare, his tune, like Senator Portman's, would change some more.
Ah, well! I like the result in the instant case, but I do not care for the process that creates the result.
While I am also pleased that Senator Portman has had a 'change of heart', it has always bewildered me (though it should not) that people take strong stances on issues: until it affects him or her. It shows that their 'beliefs' are built on a foundation of sand.
It is hypocritical as hell, and shows a complete lack of principle. The other issue which shows complete lack of principle is abortion, where 50% of Americans claim to be "pro-life" and yet 90% opt for abortion when the baby suffers from Downs syndrome.
Well, yes, glad he changed his mind. I don't respect him, though. His ilk has been attacking same sex marriages, etc. but they change their minds when someone in their family comes-out. That he didn't know his son was gay until now, if that's what the insinuation is, he certainly didn't have much of a relationship with his son.
Good news The reasons these republicans are flip flopping on the issue as they know the SCOTUS is going to rule DOMA and Prop 8 is unconstitutional in June. They want to be on correct side of history the way inter racial marriage was allowed in 1967.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inahandbasket
Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman on Thursday announced he has reversed his longtime opposition to same-sex marriage after reconsidering the issue because his 21-year-old son, Will, is gay. Portman said his son, a junior at Yale University, told him and his wife, Jane, that he's gay and "it was not a choice, it was who he is and that he had been that way since he could remember."
"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," Portman told reporters in an interview at his office.
He joins a long list of Republicans pushing for gay marriage
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
While I am also pleased that Senator Portman has had a 'change of heart', it has always bewildered me (though it should not) that people take strong stances on issues: until it affects him or her. It shows that their 'beliefs' are built on a foundation of sand.
Dick Cheney: the same boat as Senator Portman: since his daughter is gay, he likewise looks favorably on gay rights. If she were not gay, it is easy to suppose that he would be a firebrand against such rights.
In favor of assault weapons? Well, just until the person is shot. Then they propose all sorts of laws limiting access to guns.
There is an old saw concerning 'law and order' people: A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
I certainly witnessed some Washington politicians change their minds about the draft back in the late 1960s when their drop-out sons became eligible for the draft (to me it is no coincident that the WWII vets who numbered mightily in the House and Senate started having a change of heart when their own children began hitting draft age).
The problem, of course, is that the rights of gays, for example, should not be subject to a happenstance of a politicians' family member announcing their sexual orientation. A person's opinion should be based upon calm, reflective reasoning, including what the Constitution says.
I will say that I am glad that Senator Portman does not have, apparently, a strong, over-riding religious belief that would trump his son's announcement ("Son, you is going to heck!").
One of my relatives is of the same sort: utterly against any government assistance for anyone whatsoever, until he felt compelled to file for (and began receiving) Federal disability benefits. After some 20 years (he is now 55) of receiving such benefits he has obviously, long ago, received much more in payments than he ever paid in. How he panics whenever his case is up for review for possible cessation! How he howls about the blasted government daring to threaten his monthly payments! Yet, he is adamant about cutting off all assistant to the poor and elderly ("let them sink or swim!"). He also cares not about properly funding the VA, since he (eligible for treatment at such facilities) prefers his own private doctor. Since he is in his own private lifeboat, he can watch with detached amusement as others sink into the depths. I suppose that if his disability were to cease, and he had to file for welfare, his tune, like Senator Portman's, would change some more.
Ah, well! I like the result in the instant case, but I do not care for the process that creates the result.
Just imagine if these morons had to use our insurance plans! We'd have universal health care tomorrow! And wow, if a daughter had to make a hard choice about abortion ... the mind boggles. Abortion clinics on every corner.
This little episode is a microcosm of the conservative mindset. They're against everything until it affects them personally, because they are incapable of empathy or even acknowledging the very existence of people outside their bubble.
It's too bad, though, that he couldn't come to that conclusion when it was other people being affected by the anti-marriage equality laws and that he waited until his own family was affected by it personally before having his own epiphany.
I would be curious to know how many of the folks here on cd who oppose gay marriage have children, or other people they love, who are gay?
And this raises a more general question: How many of us are politically out-spoken in favor of policies that hurt us personally? It might be interesting to hear real-life examples of people who have either changed their views in response to changes in personal life, or people who held their political ground, despite strong personal pressure to see things from a different perspective.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-15-2013 at 07:24 AM..
I get a kick out of some straight folk that believe that since the freaky stuff they do is ok because it's with a woman...
I wonder if God will say "You and Suzy Rottencrotch did some things that technically crossed the line, but since you're straight...COME ON IN..."
If they were married, man and woman, and both saved, that's exactly what He'll say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reasons these republicans are flip flopping on the issue as they know the SCOTUS is going to rule DOMA and Prop 8 is unconstitutional in June. They want to be on correct side of history the way inter racial marriage was allowed in 1967.