Sen. Rob Portman backs same-sex marriage
Updated 8:36 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a co-sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), now supports same-sex marriage, he announced late last night.
Portman, who was at one point considered a top contender to be Mitt Romney's running mate in the 2012 presidential election, announced his reversal in an interview last night with CNN's Dana Bash. He also wrote about the decision in an op-ed this morning for the Columbia 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," he said.
- Goldman Sachs joins 277 other firms seeking DOMA reversal
- Clinton: Court should nix anti-gay marriage law
- Obama: If I were on Supreme Court, I'd defend same-sex marriage
Portman said his evolution on the subject began in 2011 when his son, Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told his parents he was gay.
"My son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it's just part of who he is, and that's who he'd been that way for as long as he could remember," Portman told CNN.
Santorum on Portman's gay marriage shift: "Won't change" what marriage is
At that point, he began to view the issue "from a new perspective, and that's of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," he said, according to the Dispatch.
"If anything, I'm even more proud of the way he has handled the whole situation," he said. "He's an amazing young man."
The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments on a challenge to DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage, next week.
"Well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of marriage for gay couples, and maintaining religious freedom is as important as pursuing civil marriage rights. For example, I believe that no law should force religious institutions to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don't approve of," Portman wrote in the Dispatch. "One way to look at it is that gay couples' desire to marry doesn't amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution."
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 794 Comments
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power"
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
A hundred years from now the younger generation will be asking their great grandfathers what a Republican was because they have to write a paper about them in history class.
So long Republicans or whatever you rename yourselves.
___________________________________________________________
I heard they're strongly considering the Salad Tosser's Party.
Oops.. that was supposed to be down below.
____________________________________
Somewhere there's somebody not treating somebody right.
I do consider myself a fiscal conservative, but in matters of law and the judiciary, one can arguably paint me, and rightly so, as a lib.
The point is, that anything tied to liberalism and conservatism seems to be decided on the basis of fiscal accountability, these days. The problem is, however, that it becomes a dilemma in the penumbral sense. Which is to say, if we are all guaranteed certain rights by implication of some constitutional, civil order or things, the cut-off lines become very hard to interpret, and blurred. Especially in terms of for what reason and to what extent we should agree on any placing any infringement of those rights, and
curtail the discretion of common people.
My philosophies of law and politics within the law (and the judiciary) would, in the long run, tend to restore fiscal conservatism to our society in a measurable sense. Critics, I am sure, would not agree.
Regardless, it's why I believe it pays and is pennywise"r" to remain along various social margins as a liberal who supports centrist-minded goals for the centermost part of our society, and its taxpayer base. We're not marginalizing enough the choices and attitudes, and positions, of our people's supposed wrongs, and we are enhancing too greatly a general restriction on one's capacity to right those wrongs.
All the dogma and preaching and so-called reservist mentalities holding up their self-righteous banner of dos and don'ts, tends to lead too many into paying more for the special interests than they are deserving of. And there are far too many special interests to begin with, leave alone the enormous amount of them that tend to re-enforce our society's mantra of being a "nation of laws" in ways too expensive for the average person.
You've lost all the conservative Democrats because you (the Republicans) support, with legislation, the as_ho__s who run the corporations we in America work for that have stripped the workers at the bottom of the company of pay and benefits and rewarded them for the record profits by paying lots of executives 20 to 30 million a year.
Just keep rubbing our faces in it and we will be glad to vote for the party that supports, through legislation, pro-union values. We won't care if that candidate grows horns, sprouts a tail, and spews fireball from their eyes. Standing up at the pulpit, rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues, and the lover of money don't go together. We are COMPLETELY tired of your love of money.
These people (big business) study worker demographics to the infinite degree like we are lab rats. They know exactly how much to give American workers to allow them to just keep their heads above water. Kind of like the old "company store" gone nation wide. They set the prices in the store to keep the workers in debt their whole lives. In return, the workers who produce record production records and profits NEED to work until they die or until they just physically can't. Then these are the same people (Republicans) who want to take away ANY hope of retiring with even a small nest egg by eliminating "social liberal programs" medicare and social security.
You guys are going to disappear at the voting polls. We don't want to work until we die without being able to afford, maybe one vacation and a couple ball games with our families without having to take out a loan that we repay for five years while we watch our company executives buy 40 five star homes around the world and a custom DC 10 to get them there.
A hundred years from now the younger generation will be asking their great grandfathers what a Republican was because they have to write a paper about them in history class.
So long Republicans or whatever you rename yourselves, just keep counting your money because we'll be voting for the party that supports unions.
You could always shoot me an e-mail if you want to keep it off the boards legal, you know my addy
------
And that's sort of what adds a layer of irony to all of this.
You and her are the ONLY two I've ever released that information to, my own email, that is.
My first response to this was going to be "I just see it", but I knew that wouldn't be a good enough reply...
I saw subtle shots being taken on both sides, but without knowing about the personal exchanges, I might not have noticed them...
----
I'm not sure I understand what this means.
Besides, a "side" for what, who.
"Honor"? "Bravery"?
Really, gimme a break.
Not the liberal lying tax funded side. Like Dan.... Once you go over there you are lost to sane people forever.