Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) endorses gay marriage

[SystemError]

The first Federally elected Republican ever to endorse it while in office.

Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Rob Portman said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage — a surprise turnabout on a hot-button social issue, sparked by a deeply personal reflection that began two years ago after Portman's son, Will, told him that he is gay.

"It's a change of heart from the position of a father," Portman told three Ohio reporters on Thursday during a 45-minute interview in his office. "I think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage."

Portman's endorsement of gay marriage makes him the only sitting Republican senator to hold that position. But it comes at a time when public attitudes are shifting quickly on the issue, and more and more states are sanctioning gay marriage.

Ohio's junior senator outlined his position in the interview, and in an op-ed that appears Friday in The Columbus Dispatch.

"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 bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," Portman writes in the op-ed. "This isn't how I've always felt."

Welcome to the 21st century, Rob! Prepare for the primary!

[TimothyC]

Welcome to the 21st century, Rob! Prepare for the primary!

He's not up for reelection until 2016. He's got plenty of time - and the religious wing of the party in Ohio isn't as strong as it once was (it peaked back around '04). All he has to do is stay fiscally conservative to avoid a tea party challenger and he's good. He's helped by the fact that there is no Senate election in Ohio next year - he can take this stand and not fracture the state party internally. The Governor's race might get interesting, but I doubt this will be a big issue (if only because Kaisch is going to run on the economy).

[Lagmonster]

Note that he didn't give a shit until it affected him, personally. I don't think I admire a person who only agrees to be fair to people if he knows them.

[SystemError]

All he has to do is stay fiscally conservative to avoid a tea party challenger and he's good.

I doubt it. Check out some of the Freeper comments.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2997055/posts

If I had a son who wanted to marry another man, a toaster, or a favorite novel, that wouldn’t make me willing to pretend that any of those pairings is a real marriage.

---

Unicorns are gay. Teddy bears and pink ponies are gay. Homosexuals are not gay. They are miserable, self loathing sexual perverts and a tiny fraction of the total population; a fringe group provided extra - ordinary power and protected class status by secular humanists on the left to drive a wedge against traditional Christian family values...and now the GOP wants to embrace that. To hell with them.

---

Flavious posted: This is all a pretext to eventually legalizing sex with children. That’s what this is all about. Incremental-ism.

Flavious, that's what my husband always says is the long-term goal. The other thing he always says is that at some point, it will be a high school graduation requirement to perform some type of homosexual sex.

---

RINO Portman sold his constituents down the river when he decided to support Romney over Santorum out of hopes he’d be the Veep.

What a freaking surprise.

---

Next that RINO sissy will invite Anderson Cooper to a sleep over. And the GOP wonders why they have lost decent conservative voters.

---

And they wonder why Conservatives did not turn out in mass for Romney, the establishment caves to everything the Liberal Left wants, time for the RINO’s to go!

---

Portman is a RINO...always was...always will be.

---

Portman is becoming libertarian along with all the other rinos.

---

The gay mafia may have something on him.

---

Hey, Portman: SCREW YOU!

Oh, wait . . . maybe he wouldn’t mind that from me now.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I admit to some schadenfreude. I am rubbing my hands together saying "Good, good," while imagining my superconservative maternal grandparents (who live in Ohio) squirm.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Note that he didn't give a shit until it affected him, personally. I don't think I admire a person who only agrees to be fair to people if he knows them.

Even IF the only reason he is switching his mind is because he found out his son is gay, that is STILL something worth giving credit for.

He didn't hush it up, he didn't disown him, he didn't shun him or try and "re-educate" his son. He accepted him and changed his mind about gay people. That is something that is actaully worth taking note of.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

What Crossroads said. It's admirable; he could have just sent his son to one of these "education camps" and say he upholds family values, which is what many conservatives who do this say anyway. Instead, he opened his mind enough to say that gays are people too.

Also, I don't think we need to post Free Republic comments here. These people are hardly two steps ahead of Youtube commenters in an evolutionary basis, and besides there are always the idiots who bitch and moan and then vote like always.

[TimothyC]

All he has to do is stay fiscally conservative to avoid a tea party challenger and he's good.

I doubt it. Check out some of the Freeper comments.

Yeah, as vocal as they are online that population isn't representative of the Ohio GOP, mostly because they (the Ohio GOP) did a good job of subsuming the Tea Party back into itself. It helped that the Ohio GOP was going through a replacement cycle at the time (following the issues of Taft and Blackwell).

One other minor point to keep in mind is that Senator Portman has now given some limited political cover for other in-office GOP politicians to soften stances, and support gay marriage going forward because no one else is going to be "the first" to take that position.

[Zaune]

Is anyone else vaguely annoyed by his insinuation that a wedding ceremony is mandatory for "stability" in a relationship, or am I just unusually cynical about the whole concept?

[madd0ct0r]

he's not changing his stance that marriage works, in fact, because marriage is SO important, it's wrong to deny it to people who are gay (requiring him to accept it is not a lifestyle choice)

You can get annoyed about his opinion about marriage, but they're what led him to take this step.

[Alyeska]

Note that he didn't give a shit until it affected him, personally. I don't think I admire a person who only agrees to be fair to people if he knows them.

Friends and family always make things more important. What was previously a disant concept is far more immediate and real. Its human nature.

You condem him for changing his mind because of his son. What you fail to recognize is his son allowed him to see his preconcieved notions are wrong.

The whole "Coming Out" movement for people who are homosexual has been a stunning success. Primarily because it shows everyone that gay people exist and they are everywhere. Its hard to be a bigot when you learn friends and family are gay. It demolishes preconcieved notions.

Changing ones viewpoint can be even harder for the older generations that come from a time when homosexuality was seen in a far more negative light.

A major figure in the GOP, currently an elected official, has changed his stance. And half the comments I am seeing aren't congratulating him, but insulting him for changing sides. And these aren't Tea-Party comments either.

[Lagmonster]

Note that he didn't give a shit until it affected him, personally. I don't think I admire a person who only agrees to be fair to people if he knows them.

Friends and family always make things more important. What was previously a disant concept is far more immediate and real. Its human nature.

The only thing I take from the man is that in at least one regard, he is a good father. As a political creature, however, supposedly in consideration of the interests of thousands of individuals, I am annoyed that he never thought to ask himself how he would advocate if it WERE his son, if it BEING his son was all it took to get him to come around. Don't get me wrong, I see the difference you're talking about, but I expect better from people at his level of power.

You condem him for changing his mind because of his son. What you fail to recognize is his son allowed him to see his preconcieved notions are wrong.

I didn't say anything about condemning him, I said I don't admire him. You want admiration, show some consideration to the anecdotes of the countless other people who've already had the same experience he did and came out on the positive, possibly even those who've pled their case to the same guy in the past via petitions, letters, whatever interest groups tend to send to politicians. Do the mental gymnastics without being prodded by instinct and emotion. Then I'll say you're a better person than I am.

The whole "Coming Out" movement for people who are homosexual has been a stunning success. Primarily because it shows everyone that gay people exist and they are everywhere. Its hard to be a bigot when you learn friends and family are gay. It demolishes preconcieved notions.

It does, and you're correct. There's a lot of power in personal experience.

[fgalkin]

Sometimes it takes personal experience to overcome deep-seated biases. Normally, if one avoids the subject of one's prejudices, there is no way for them to see their error. It is only when someone one knows well already, a friend or a relative is revealed to be a member of a discriminated minority that these views change because this is the first meaningful interaction they've had with that group EVER. You cannot blame him for being selfish because his reasoning behind changing his views is likely very different from what you aspire to him. This is, in fact, the first time he's actually realized that gays are people just like him. You cannot do that if their mere presence makes your skin crawl.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Gaidin]

A major figure in the GOP, currently an elected official, has changed his stance. And half the comments I am seeing aren't congratulating him, but insulting him for changing sides. And these aren't Tea-Party comments either.

It almost sounds like we're trying to burn him at the stake. I thought that was the other side's job.

[Simon_Jester]

Is anyone else vaguely annoyed by his insinuation that a wedding ceremony is mandatory for "stability" in a relationship, or am I just unusually cynical about the whole concept?

If you ask me, the ceremony as such isn't the issue.

But even having a wedding ceremony at all, and the social customs that come with it... That (usually) takes long range cooperative planning, a serious intention to organize a household together, and a willingness to make long term binding promises about one's own commitment. A relationship that has those things is probably healthier than one that doesn't, even if it's not healthier than one that does have them but inexplicably doesn't have a wedding involved.

Obviously two people who get married overnight in Vegas while drunk aren't going to be magically held together by WEDDING MANA. But (for example) a couple that have gotten engaged are more likely to trust each other to stay together than one where the man isn't even willing to promise the woman that he'll be around for another couple of weeks, let alone the rest of her life.


Also, symbolism has power for human beings, even when by cartoon-Vulcan standards it shouldn't. Even if theoretically we shouldn't care... we do.

[Irbis]

What Crossroads said. It's admirable; he could have just sent his son to one of these "education camps" and say he upholds family values, which is what many conservatives who do this say anyway. Instead, he opened his mind enough to say that gays are people too.

Eh, I find it hard to give him credit for the first one seeing it's kind of too late for camps. His son is 21 and university freshman - at this point, disowning was the only conservative option left. Opening his mind only means he is sane, unlike many right wingers.

It almost sounds like we're trying to burn him at the stake. I thought that was the other side's job.

*shrug* Purity. Humans love to see others as 'us' and 'them'. Portman choose moving himself to 'them' camp, seeing reverse (making his son heterosexual) was impossible, these idiots choose to move him to the other camp instead. For them, he is the other side now, because he dared to challenge their preconceived notion the anti-gay stance is the All-American Truth™.

[Simon_Jester]

Irbis, you don't understand, Alyeska is talking about us. Including you.

We're getting a lot of "oh, well, this just means he's sane" and "note that he didn't give a shit until it affected him, personally."

To borrow your terms, the problem is that we're thinking "us" and "them," and Portman is so irredeemably tainted by his "themness" that the people here who are "us" are unable to accept his conversion. Instead of being the first Republican politician in American history to accept gay marriage as a fundamental thing based on the humanity of homosexuals, he becomes 'that shithead who voted against it until his son came out.'

Because recognizing this as a positive milestone would involve saying good things about a Republican. Which would somehow mean that "they" win.

[fgalkin]

Thus proving how hard it is to genuinely change one's views until one of "us" becomes affected.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Broomstick]

Note that he didn't give a shit until it affected him, personally. I don't think I admire a person who only agrees to be fair to people if he knows them.

You may not like that, but it is a fact that many people don't give a rat's ass about persecuted minorities until such persecution affects someone they know personally. Not an appealing trait, but a very human one.

I'd rather someone reconsider long-standing indifference or bias such as Portman has than insist on being consistent and disown, beat, or attempt to kill a child who turned out "wrong" as happens far too often.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Eh, I find it hard to give him credit for the first one seeing it's kind of too late for camps. His son is 21 and university freshman - at this point, disowning was the only conservative option left. Opening his mind only means he is sane, unlike many right wingers.

Then exchange the camps for disownment. Does my point still stand, or does it not?