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.
Agree the two tools that work best for progressiveism are MSM and Hollywood.
I remember when many on FR thought no state anywhere would ever lose a ‘gay marriage’ popular vote. I hope you are right. But if you look at the % the amendments passed by, where and when they passed and what regions, it doesn’t look too good, in my opinion.
“The only reason this abnormal BS has won in any state is because billionare liberals from out of state pour in millions and millions of dollars to bribe lawmakers.”
I think the biggest reason that so many accept impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’ is that many have been conditioned to think the state defines marriage. How does the state define marriage? It defines it by whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think it is at any one time. And that’s it. I think the average % the amendments passed was 67% or so, but that was a few years ago before the resent votes, it would be lower now.
Freegards
Well duh. We've had two decades of an unending onslaught of propaganda, not to mention outright bullying, until people are afraid to oppose it.
For whatever reason, the Powers That Be appear to have picked this issue a few decades ago and started pushing it (it certainly wasn't the "gays" themselves, since there aren't enough of them). Maybe this is one way to slow down our "surplus" population growth?
Rashi said that homosexual-filled non-Jewish societies were not destroyed by HaShem because at least they had the basic decency not to write out "marriage" licenses for such people. Looks like that deal's about to run out.
Nailed it!
There is no organized response to this. The left framese this as liberty vs religious bigots. We shoudl be responding that gay marriage is intollerence against hte religious. It forces people to accept, celebrates, and subsidize behavior they don’t like. But that argument is never allowed in the media because the gay media won’t run it and the religious right is too dumb to try it.
Having said that, what I can't understand is why an issue that is only relevant to a tiny fraction of the population (2-3% of which is homosexual, and of these an even smaller fraction are remotely interested in "marriage") gets headlines and attention that you'd expect for the most pressing issues of the day.
Why is this getting more press than the budget debate, immigration reform, and other matters that are relevant to all of us rather than a noisy minority (and an equally noisy contingent who obsess over them)?
I got unfriended by a "devout Catholic" on facebook for pointing out her support of homo "marriage" went against her faith. I guess the truth hurts. I don't see why liberal Catholics just don't become Episcopalians instead of demanding the church change it's views to suit them.
“I don’t see why liberal Catholics just don’t become Episcopalians instead of demanding the church change it’s views to suit them” DITTO!
You should ask her why she wants to be a member of a faith that she does not agreed with? Thousands of Episcopalians have flocked to the Catholic Church because of the liberal views of the Episcopalians.
I like your take. This was a God inspired union of man and woman that has been taken over and re-interpreted by the vulgar, secular state. Marriage apart from God becomes whatever secular elitist rulers want it to be. As far as I’m concerned marriage is dead. Let them marry their dogs, cats,and pet rabbits next. That’s all the value it has.
Tried to and got unfriended for it. The most I got out of her is "God is not a hypocrite"
Barone means "tough for the RiNO-ate to get the GOP membership to sit still for, and swallow, the obviously nasty, vindictive, and degenerate politics of homosexuality as some sort of venerable American beau ideal."
In the face of reality, all that Barone and the other GOP-e types are worrying about is how to diddle their own and ingratiate themselves with catamites and sodomites who will always hate them anyway.
Barone and the e-GOP'ers have political-donation envy. Another rich group of degenerates has been throwing money at the Dems .... and the RiNO's want them some perv-money. Putos!
Because they're callow, stupid, and slow to catch on that they've been lied to in 11 dimensions for 30 years by the Velvet Underground in Hollywood and MSM journalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.