Sen. Rob Portman endorses same-sex marriage in ‘change of heart’

Posted by on Mar 15, 2013 at 7:57 am

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has endorsed same-sex marriage — a “change of heart” that came after his son revealed to him two years ago that he was gay.

“I think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage,” Portman told a small group of Ohio reporters on Thursday, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.In a separate op-ed published Friday in the Columbus Dispatch, Portman wrote: “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.”

Full story.

12 Responses to “Sen. Rob Portman endorses same-sex marriage in ‘change of heart’”

  1. Manufactured Messiah on 15/15/13 at 9:20 am

    Oh good. His thinking evolved too. Both he and the dear leader are politicians. Both probably had to keep peace in their house. So we get this. This became a good idea when and only when a gay person was officially living in his house.

    And this is why we’re called the stupid party.

    Rosa Parks sitting where she wanted to sit was a good idea. And so she did. It didn’t matter whether she lived in the house of a policy maker, or whether another policy maker wanted to hide from the shitty economy and shittier “recovery”. If changing the definition of marriage for the benefit of gays and gays only is a good idea, then it’s a good idea. And if it’s not…..

  2. Susan on 15/15/13 at 10:15 am

    Speaking of changing definitions, imagine if The State- for the purpose of achieving fairness and equality -were given the authority to re-define the definition of homosexual to mean sex between people. While technically correct, this re-definition would eliminate the existence of the homosexual.

    This is my argument against giving The State-for the purpose of fairness and equality-the authority to re-define marriage; those who wish give The State the authority to re-define marriage are effectively eliminating the existence of marriage.

    And isn’t this what Marxist’s Statism is all about, eliminating God’s relationship between Man and Woman?

    Further; and for all the Ivy-Inbred Marxist Lawyers and Law Professors the fallacy of your legal argument for Gay Marriage is that homosexuals want the same rights as heterosexuals yet heterosexuals are not allowed to marry a member of the same-sex while homosexuals have always been permitted to enter into a contract of marriage. Equality is achieved despite The State’s attempts to re-define Equality.

    When The State works against meaning then all becomes meaningless.

  3. MT Geoff on 15/15/13 at 2:31 pm

    Marriage under the care of church and state has suffered greatly. The big dangers to traditional marriage come from the selfishness of heterosexual adults who leave their marriages or who don’t form them in the first place. A second source of danger is the welfare state that makes marriage seem less necessary. Those threats have nothing whatever to do with people who are homosexual.
    I’m with the separation-of-marriage-and-state crowd. To a Muslim, a Christian marriage may look invalid because it’s not part of the Muslim law. To a Christian, the same might seem true of a Muslim marriage. Both may scorn the atheist or agnostic who marry at the courthouse and all three may have problems with a couple who are gay.
    Let’s let any combination of adults form a civil relationship as they choose. Polygamy has a long history and appears to be sanctioned in the Old Testament at least. Polyandry is far less common but certainly has been seen more than gay relationships.
    Both or all members are mutual heirs, joint tenants, next-of-kin for all legal purposes. Then let each couple or group marry, if they choose, in a religious event that matches their beliefs, if any. Every church would be expected to perform and recognize marriages that meet their doctrines and traditions, but only those, as they do with baptism or bar mitzvah now. Since the marriage is religious and private, it is not subject to the civil law.

  4. Blue Hen on 15/15/13 at 4:19 pm

    “Every church would be expected to perform and recognize marriages that meet their doctrines and traditions, but only those, as they do with baptism or bar mitzvah now. Since the marriage is religious and private, it is not subject to the civil law.”

    This is a pathetic joke. There is no basis for this.What in Hell do you mean “would be expected”!?! That itself implies that someone has the authority to judge churches. You just contradicted yourself.
    And since when has the left ever respected that which is religious or private, unless it has to do with islam?

    “Both may scorn the atheist or agnostic who marry at the courthouse and all three may have problems with a couple who are gay.”

    Or they may not. Why do you persist on making up these false charges of “scorn” and having problems”? Are you that desperate to avoid the issue? You want to redefine marriage, and for one group only. Today, if an atheist, worshipper of Ra the Sun God or agnostic gets married, it’s a guy and a gal doing it. No one was bitching about the Clerk of the Peace. You made that shit up. You do not advocate marriage equality (Oedipus, groups, kids, whatever). Your ludicrous gag about churches being protected has less value than Wile E. Coyote’s umbrella. And throughout there is this posturing about being rational. For what? You like gay marriage. We got it. And you’re willing to float any lie, any smear to gain that.
    Does society stand to gain from re-defining marriage? Will it gain from de-empasizing marriage? If not, then neither should occur.

  5. MT Geoff on 15/15/13 at 4:40 pm

    Howdy Blue Hen
    The Baptist Church is expected — by its members at least — to perform marriages consistent with its teachings and its traditions. The same for the Roman Catholic Church and Muslim congregations, Sikhs and Hindus.
    If marriage is defined by the spiritual communities, then each has the duty to perform those within its doctrines and the right to exclude those outside its doctrines. Actually, they have that duty and that right now; my theory is to take the state out of the equation of the spiritual. My goal would be to protect religious groups from meddling by Left or Right — the Unitarian Universalist Association wants to perform gay marriages, but can’t solemnize them in civil law in most states now.
    As for the Christian, the Moslem and the agnostic scorning a couple who are gay — yes, they may or they may not. I think nearly all Moslems would and I think fewer agnostics would. So no, I’m not making that up.
    There are relatively few people who are gay — most estimates run 3-5%. I don’t know how many people want plural marriage but I think it’s very few also. I am in favor of the nuclear family in a conventional household. My marriage isn’t dependent on banning others from living as they choose and I don’t believe other marriages are.

  6. Blue Hen on 15/15/13 at 8:52 pm

    My goal would be to protect religious groups from meddling by Left or Right

    You haven’t a hope in Hell of doing it. You’re either dishonest or deluded.

    I don’t give a tinker’s damn for your opinion of the nuclear family. This was about redefining marriage, which you still avoid admitting. And who asked about percentages? You are demanding one change, for one group only. This still means groups are excluded.

    Bitch about scorn all you want. And good luck shifting moslems.

  7. MT Geoff on 15/15/13 at 9:57 pm

    Howdy Blue Hen
    I am not asking anyone to redefine marriage; I’m asking that the state recognize the civil-law contract relationship and step out of the realm of the spiritual or religious. That should reduce the tempation of anyone to interfere with any religious community.
    Will it work? I dunno but it’s a good method to try.
    The change I’m suggesting is actually for everyone. All have the same status, male or female, straight or gay, religious or not.
    If you choose to disagree with my position, that puts you in a large group. But please disagree with, well, my position and not a seriously mistaken version of it.

  8. Blue Hen on 16/16/13 at 8:50 am

    I’m asking that the state recognize the civil-law contract relationship and step out of the realm of the spiritual or religious. That should reduce the tempation of anyone to interfere with any religious community.
    Will it work? I dunno but it’s a good method to try.

    So.

    1. You advocate civil unions for everybody, and which was at first the priority of the rabid activists, but now isn’t good enough.
    2. Society has to de-emphasize marriage, to placate rabid activists and hopefully stop power plays. You have no idea that it will work, and this is dependent solely upon the better nature of the rabid activists. And you think that this is a good idea.

    This is a joke. I can see why you were hiding behind the fig leaves of “scorn” and “I believe in the nuclear family. Society has to give something up, everyone has to retreat from the public sphere, and then maybe the attacks will stop. Yeah, that’s a swell social contract.
    Did it ever occur to you that if you reward one hate filled power play after another, you are merely whetting the appetite of the one making the power plays?

    These same activists have been going after private dating services, Catholic adoption agencies and wedding photographers for the last ten years. Got any bright ideas why they would suddenly reverse themselves? Why would they SUDDENLY start respecting the difference between private and public? Other than wishful thinking?

  9. MT Geoff on 16/16/13 at 11:31 pm

    Howdy Blue Hen
    You accuse me of wanting to break up the family. I have not advocated anything of the kind. One could say that recognizing unions for people who are gay is advocacy of the nuclear family, since it seems to guide people who are gay toward established relationships. But that isn’t really the point.
    Most people will choose heterosexual lifestyles because only a few people want gay lifestyles. That will be true with or without recognition of civil unions for all.
    The key problems of the family are outside of the influence of people who are gay. Keeping marriage a holy event won’t diminish the family at all.
    If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, and I have to think you do, you should guide your life on that principle. But I decline to help you impose that on anyone else, as I won’t help anyone who is gay force the Catholic Church or a private photographer to take part.

  10. Blue Hen on 17/17/13 at 9:51 pm

    You accuse me of wanting to break up the family

    Congratulations. You’ve moved on to utter horseshit. Your previous diatribe came close to the truth, in that you suggested; “that should reduce the tempation of anyone to interfere with any religious community.
    Will it work? I dunno but it’s a good method to try.”

    Now you’re back to trying to guess whether other people do or do not like gays or them being married. It sucks having a “solution” that even you know is wishful thinking. You ignored everything that you found inconvenient. You want what you want and will not consider what has already occurred. Hate filled gay activists already HAVE attacked private entities. Society abdicating its stake in marriage will not change that. But you’d rather build straw men.

  11. TravelsDate on 19/19/13 at 5:37 am

    I have received many invitations, but I only accepted one. I traveled to Europe with a very nice, respectful man and we had a wonderful time!