Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

Senator Portman Now Backs Same-Sex Marriage

17 posts in this topic

Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who was on Mitt Romney’s short list as a potential vice presidential nominee in 2012, has reversed his long-held position opposing same-sex marriage, he wrote in a column published today in the Columbus (Ohio) 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 in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote.

Two years ago, he said, his son Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told Portman and his wife, Jane, that he was gay.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it takes personal knowledge like this to overcome deep seated biases. At least he has the courage to go public about it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess when your genes are doing the talking, it makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it takes personal knowledge like this to overcome deep seated biases. At least he has the courage to go public about it.

I agree. And good for him.

But it's kind of sad though, in the past he apparently never took into consideration the thoughts and feelings of other families with gay sons and daughters. It looks like he only cares now because it is affecting his own family.

But all in all it's a good thing. I'm just finding something to complain about I guess.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least he came around.

A little true understanding and compassion can change a persons perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all in all it's a good thing. I'm just finding something to complain about I guess.

That's because there is something to complain about. It's all well and good to applaud his change of heart, and his courage in expressing this. But where was his empathy before it was something that affected him personally? It's just another example of the wholly unsuitable, self-centred , self-serving types who invariably end up in politics. What irony that he probably considers himself a "public servant".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea you need some method other than self-selection to see who gets to be a politician. For one, I would ban anyone who has a law degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. And good for him.

But it's kind of sad though, in the past he apparently never took into consideration the thoughts and feelings of other families with gay sons and daughters. It looks like he only cares now because it is affecting his own family.

But all in all it's a good thing. I'm just finding something to complain about I guess.

The same can be said for Bill Clinton - he signed DOMA, but has since had a change of heart on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a topic I really don't wade into very often and probably shouldn't. But what is the point of supporting this archaic concept of marriage? if it is show your comitment to another person? shouldn't we marry our boss? this in itself is a very unnatural act not to many animals mate for life. If it is to support the concept of family??? where did that come from? you go that route you put same-sex unions on shaky ground. because I don't know of any same-sex couples that can naturally procreate there by making a "family" in the classic sense. As I said marriage is a unnatural act that was in it's original form created by god which opened up a whole host of other problems fornication , adultrey, divorce and others. So if you are doing it as a public testimony of a heavenly union??? well let's just say god was pretty clear on what he thought of same-sex unions. Or is all of this just to get a tax break, cheaper health insurance and erode the foundation of western civilation? I just don't see how this is showing us as being a more enlightned society because we now accept same-sex unions? homosexuality has been going on just as long as stealing, murder, fornication, adultrey and a whole host of other "taboo" behaviors who made this the acid test for our enlightenment? we are not the first society to except homosexuality none of them are around to talk about it but I'm sure there is no connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think marriage is a fine old institution if one wants to live in an institution. (Sorry, couldn't help it -- I think that's W. C. Fields).

Being married is about the most wonderful thing a man can be. It requires work, but there is something to be said for the sharing and friendship and partnership that only something like marriage can provide. I miss it terribly (my wife died a few years ago).

I don't think the state needs to be involved, nor the church. Some recognized ritual is needed, and obviously marriage has characteristics in it of a contract, so the state needs to be involved if there are disputes over property or children in a divorce, but otherwise neither body should have anything more than voluntary involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because there is something to complain about. It's all well and good to applaud his change of heart, and his courage in expressing this. But where was his empathy before it was something that affected him personally? It's just another example of the wholly unsuitable, self-centred , self-serving types who invariably end up in politics. What irony that he probably considers himself a "public servant".

Well said!

Politicians only have a change of heart if something affects them personally or to get a few votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skepticism here is no doubt called for. I think he probably felt he had no choice, since his son's orientation was bound to become public at some point and he could hardly publicly denounce him.

Still I don't know. We often manage to convince ourselves that what is in our interest is what is right and best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the life of me I cant understand why anyone should care what any politition thinks about any form of marrage. The government should have nothing to do with marrage. The fact that this is a story people find worthy of telling is a sad reflection on our aproval to let these so called public servents control every aspect of our lives.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the life of me I cant understand why anyone should care what any politition thinks about any form of marrage. The government should have nothing to do with marrage. The fact that this is a story people find worthy of telling is a sad reflection on our aproval to let these so called public servents control every aspect of our lives.

I get the emotion behind what you say, but it is not realistic to not have the government involved, especially when property or children are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the emotion behind what you say, but it is not realistic to not have the government involved, especially when property or children are involved.

Sad to say, but that isnt far from the truth. Thats how pathetic our society has become

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is a topic that blows me away and has for ages.

I know a lot of "conservative" minds that have no problem with allowing same sex couples the same legal "rights" afforded to heterosexual couples. To me, that should be a no brainer.

But what I see is a stupid fight over words.

The religious conservatives want to say "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" and the LGBT crowd want to say they are married.

Why is this an issue? If the Gov is willing to allow a same sex couple the same rights as a "married couple"...why should there be a problem? Perhaps definition is the problem...even though it should not be.

Married is a man and a woman. A "social union" is the same as a marriage but it does not have the same definition....it can be man and man, woman and woman...man and sheep...woman and donkey....who freaking cares? Is this not about rights and privileges?

No, I guess it is not. I guess some folks are not happy with having the rights, they want the title....well..."marriage" is a biblical term...it is not a governmental term. "marriage" was a term dating back to a time before we had formal governments. So...If they are just interested in the rights and privileges of a social union...then they need to be happy. If they feel the need to hijack a word...then they lose. This makes me insane..."no G*d D@mnit...you cannot have the word or the title but you CAN have all the rights"....

I personally do not care. Marry who you want...of whatever sex or genus-species...I do not care. marry your mailbox for all I care...has zero effect on me personally.

People need to get over their "word prejudice" and live with what they get. If you are Steve and want to "join" with Tom....that is fine...you just don't get to call it married...that word was defined millenia ago...get the F over it...

Edited by Jeremiah65
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.