Skip to comments.Support for Same-sex Marriage Crosses Party Lines
Posted on 03/18/2013 6:24:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
In an opinion article in the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman announced that he has changed his mind and now supports same-sex marriage.
He wrote that on learning that one of his sons is gay he "wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister."
He is not the only prominent Republican to come to this view in this way. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is another.
And at the Conservative Political Action Committee convention, a panel sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute drew a large and approving crowd for a discussion labeled, "A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet."
It's clear now that support for same-sex marriage crosses party lines. That's what one might expect, from polls that show a huge shift of opinion on this issue over the last two decades.
In the early 1990s, large majorities opposed same-sex marriage. In 1996, Bill Clinton didn't hesitate before signing the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. He now urges its repeal.
In 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court by a 4-3 margin discovered that the state's 1780 Constitution required recognition of same-sex marriages, George W. Bush supported the Family Marriage Amendment, which would bar such marriages across the nation.
That was never going to be ratified, but it did help Bush mobilize tradition-minded voters in states like Ohio in the 2004 election.
Now many polls show majorities or pluralities of Americans favor same-sex marriage. Last November, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage.
Voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment that would ban it. That's in contrast to the results in 30 states, all but one of them in 2008 or earlier, where voters approved similar amendments.
Many of those states would surely vote the other way now, including California, whose 52-to-48 percent vote against same-sex marriage in 2008 was overturned by federal trial and appeals courts in a case now before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court could rule that the Constitution requires same-sex marriage everywhere. Or it could affirm the appeals court's rationale, which applies to California only.
Or it could say that the Constitution leaves this issue to the states. That's the outcome that, as a supporter of same-sex marriage, I prefer.
Nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage, most by legislative or popular vote. Another 11 states have no constitutional amendment barring it.
And the 30 states with such constitutional amendments could repeal those amendments by popular vote.
That would require continuing debate and discussion. A good place to start is for everyone to recognize that, as Portman writes, "well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of marriage for gay couples."
I believe that large majorities of people on both sides take their stands out of good motives. Yes, you can find some haters on both sides if you look hard.
But the large majority of Americans believe that their view -- traditional marriage or extension of marriage to same-sex couples -- is or would be good for individuals and good for society.
Backers of traditional marriage can cite hundreds of years of experience and tradition. Backers of same-sex marriage can cite the growing acceptance of gay individuals and couples in all parts of the country.
Those who oppose it fear it will weaken the institution of marriage. But so far I haven't seen evidence that extending marriage to the 3 or 4 percent who are gay has weakened the institution nearly as much as the much larger number of Americans who get divorced or have children without getting married at all.
This is an issue that divides Americans not just on partisan or religious but most conspicuously on generational lines. Young people, including many Republicans, heavily favor same-sex marriage. Elderly people, including many Democrats, heavily oppose it.
If opinion continues to move toward same-sex marriage, it will be a tough issue for Republicans, since most of their voters currently are opposed. But it will be a tough issue for some Democrats, as well, since many black voters are staunchly opposed.
But it's an issue we can handle better if we respect and acknowledge the good faith of those on the other side.
So I guess it’s safe to assume that if Portman’s son was born with kleptomania he would decide that stealing was acceptable?
A prostitute will do anything for a dollar and a vote.
sarc/ People in this country need to get a life.
>>>He wrote that on learning that one of his sons is gay he “wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister.”>>>
I hope Will’s desire for happiness doesn’t include robbing a bank or Portman will claim he has the right. After all, we are ALL entitled to be happy.
Just “un-friended” my fourth person on Facebook because of their support for Homo-Hitching.
You can say that again.
Portman is a dumb ass. His son had that opportunity but decided to follow another path. So now we have to change everything to accommodate his flaming son.
Nonsense. He didn't wrestle with squat! He hid this from the public during the campaign, got elected, and then crapped all over his constituency.
You can't wrestle with what the Bible says . . . it is quite clear . . . he should have suggested that his son get counseling with either church or secular advisers, and hoped that his son would get out of this dirty, filthy lifestyle that will probably do him in by the age of 39 or 41.
Portman is a liar and turncoat. Once again, Ohioans have a gun to their head to either elect the wishy-washy lying Republican or the alternative.
My God. When will this crap stop?
To the degree America accepts something God calls an abomination, we’ll find a reciprocal degree of God’s rejection of us.
Strangers are devouring us while we watch.
Until the day comes that two men or two women can produce a child the way nature intended there is no such thing as sodomite “marriage”. Who in the hell would have ever thought this country’s politicians would stoop so low as to try and circumvent what marriage means. These lowlifes have let 2% (if that), control their lives and it’s pathetic and sickening. But, we must never forget that it all starts at the top and when the lying ass, self-promoting liar-in-chief, opens his dumb-ass mouth and says he believes in sodomite “marriage”, the immoral stooges in Washington follow suit. Elections have conseqences and turning this country into another Sodom and Gohorrah is the result.
It's more like 1-1/2%. But it's being shoved down our throats on TV, movies, music, ads, etc. And who's really surprised that our Kenyan-born, illegal alien resident of our White House endorses faggotry, when he himself has been involved in bathhouse sodomy in Chicago.
Portman has put a gun to our heads again with the old pitch, "Gee, if you don't vote for me, a wishy washy liar and turncoat, then you might get that Democrat over there. So you gotta' vote for me, ok?"
I am so fed up with the Boener, Portman, McCain, Dole, Graham, LaTourette filthy lying politicians destroying what's left of our party.
What did people think when they watched politicians start saying that they are adopting a more libertarian view, or that to win voters conservatives must become more “libertarian”, what do they think “libertarian” means as a replacement for “conservative”?
You can’t just come into the republican party and say let’s be pro-homosexual because we are “liberal”, of course not, you have to use a new vocabulary, you have to convince people that the founding fathers created it as a right, that it is noble and enlightened to accept it, more intellectual and sophisticated.
support for traditional marriage is where God draws the line
“And the 30 states with such constitutional amendments could repeal those amendments by popular vote.”
They range from MS with 86% in 2004 to SD and CA with 52% in 2006/2008. Some are are probably repealable now, the majority are probably at least 5-10 years away, some even longer.
“But so far I haven’t seen evidence that extending marriage to the 3 or 4 percent who are gay has weakened the institution nearly as much as the much larger number of Americans who get divorced or have children without getting married at all.”
The difference is that the issue of civil divorce and remarriage was never framed as a ‘civil right’, so those faiths that never bought into civil divorce and remarriage were not punished. Same thing with having children out of wedlock. ‘Gay marriage’ is being framed as a civil right, as a tool to punish those faiths who don’t let the state dictate the definition of marriage.
and besides his son Will’s depravity will only cause his life to be a blighted disaster