The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Yeah, I think this is actually a really big deal; the GOP has in recent years demanded its members to follow the party line in lockstep, and they've been effectively chained to a very conservative social agenda, and having one senator break that wall means others will follow. So he didn't come out in favor of equality in a perfect way. He still came out in favor of equality, and that's a very significant step for somebody in the Republican party.

Demosthenes wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Some local-ish news today:

Senator Rob Portman, R OH, now favors gay marriage.

Turns out, his son is gay. Good on him for not letting rhetoric stifle the importance of his family to him, and making that into something relevant to the nation at large.

Or shame on him for only being ok with it after finding out it affects his son. Everyone else's son... f*** them. My son... he must have rights!

Well... he is a Senator.

The past is past. He can't go back and change those events, regardless of whether he wants to or not. The only thing he can do is act now, and if his current actions are good, then that's the best it can be.

Slate has a piece on this. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth or anything, but the "Oh, Now if Effects Me" change of heart is annoying.

OG_slinger wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

There's something to be said for having that crossroads moment and taking a more enlightened path.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he's still not a contemptible asshole. I mean this guy voted to prohibit gays from adopting children.

It's very telling that in the op-ed that explains his change of mind there's not anything that could remotely be considered an apology to same-sex couples.

A big man would have used the words to the extent of "I was wrong and I am sorry that I have spent the last 20 years demonizing millions of Americans just like my son and actively denying them basic human rights."

While I agree with the sentiment completely, he's breaking with most of his party, and to go that one step further, he'd essentially be pointing around, and would say your quote above, plus, "Unlike these guys who still are evil bastards."

I actually think it's helpful, not hurtful, for him to be providing a path that other Republicans in Congress/Senate can take. A non-bridge-burning path. A "this is part of my Christian faith, which by the way has some stuff about love in there somewhere...", "I've given this a lot of thought", "Family values includes my son who I support no matter what." type message. And I'm glad he can't in turn be called out by his fellow senators for his decisions, because...tah dah...they cannot really argue with his reasons, which are phrased from their perspective, which resonate with their message. This may create a path more of them can take as they wake up and smell the equality.

I'm not sure of the exact statistic, but Americans are something like ~25-30% more likely to support marriage equality if they know somebody who's LGBT. So his son is gay. And now the fundamentalist "Gay people are going to hell" crowd, who have representation in the senate, are put in the position of telling him, "Yes, your son is going to hell, too."

And that, I'd like to see.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Slate has a piece on this. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth or anything, but the "Oh, Now if Effects Me" change of heart is annoying.

Good article. There's an amazing lack on empathy held by our elected officials. It's only a big deal when it affects them, but they're supposed to be making decisions for everyone.

This is making the rounds. <3.

IMAGE(http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/dM_p.jCgBqoK4Yn0qFZiSg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/lifestyles/2013-03-15/cb3aa9d7-9259-448d-aae7-72ec6aa04b08_576238_519362561435777_686684187_n.jpg)

link to story of dad dropping the mic on parenting

Probably shoulda used the "preview comment" before hitting edit 4 times to fix a damn url tag. . .

People at large don't make decisions in the interests of others. They make decisions that serve their own interests, and when it's called out as selfish bigotry, they justify it by fitting it into their worldview (see: Christians who proclaim their efforts against gay people are for gays' own good b/c afterlife, damnation, etc.).

I have people in my family who, I'm sure, are still taking their time to come around to the idea of me being gay. These are thoughts that, had I never come out, they probably would NEVER have dealt with. Because it never affected them personally.

I'm not saying we should venerate this senator. I'm saying he shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of, "You weren't good enough," because he came to this realization in a less-than-ideal way, and over a length of time. Because it's annoying that he's an elected official and had to be personally affected by it before he could see how it affects his constituency. Changes like this happen this way. The change perhaps shouldn't be celebrated, but it at least deserves a firm nod of acknowledgement.

"Rob Portman, I now have one less reason not to vote for you. Good on ya."

CPAC Attendees Blast GOP Senator Who Announced Support For Marriage Equality (ThinkProgress)

A pastor from Georgia, William Temple, told Portman to “quit being so selfish as to only think about his son,”

So classy.

Hypatian wrote:

CPAC Attendees Blast GOP Senator Who Announced Support For Marriage Equality (ThinkProgress)

A pastor from Georgia, William Temple, told Portman to “quit being so selfish as to only think about his son,”

So classy.

Well, it's logically consistent, and mashes pretty well with the criticisms he's been getting here.

Over here people are upset that he belatedly made the correct choice for selfish reasons. At CPAC people are upset that he made the wrong choice for selfish reasons.

Really the fact that he's self-centered is the only thing that we can all agree on.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that he's selfish. I haven't looked into this story at all other than what I've read here, but if his son did come out two years ago and he only changed his mind about equality now, I think it shows that he's put some thought into it. He might have been upset with his son two years ago, and (internally or otherwise) demonized him for being in an evil, gay relationship which was obviously from the devil. Time would show that all gays are promiscuous and immoral. When this did not come to pass, and his son was able to maintain a healthy, loving relationship with another man, perhaps he was able to slowly change his mind. After all, he had just seen that not all gay relationships lead to Sodom and Gomorrah, any more than all heterosexual relationships are idyllic and happy and everlasting.

So he may not have changed his mind because suddenly he was affected by this, but because his bigotry was slowly eroded by exposure to 'the other side'. I think this is quite laudable, and not selfish at all.

Again, I have no idea if this is what happened, but it seems at least as likely as the more negative view of his 'conversion'.

What's happening in this thread to Rob Portman is a weird mesh of "fake gamer girl" and hipster vibe. Apparently we hate him because we all liked gay people before it was cool, AND he's not a real marriage supporter, he's just a poseur because his son is gay.

It's a very weird thing. I blame St Patrick.

Good for Rob Portman that he found a reason to change his views and publicly support his son. I won't pretend to know what is going on in his life, heart, or mind as it makes no difference to me. Anything I would be able to come up with would be far less complex than reality, and I don't know the slightest thing about him from a personal standpoint. It is interesting how there seems to be an effort from some on both sides to make him irrelevant though.

Seth wrote:

What's happening in this thread to Rob Portman is a weird mesh of "fake gamer girl" and hipster vibe. Apparently we hate him because we all liked gay people before it was cool, AND he's not a real marriage supporter, he's just a poseur because his son is gay.

It's a very weird thing. I blame St Patrick.

This. He sucks because he only cares about his son, but when the other side points that out they're assholes?

Between the way this thread has gone and the Feminism/Sexism thread has gone, I think I'm ready to pull the plug on the last P&C threads I found worth participating in.

That's an interesting reaction, considering that I count ten people (including yourself) who support Portman, four who don't, and two who I can't tell. I hadn't previously expressed an opinion, but I don't care how someone comes to do the right thing, so long as they do the right thing. So that's one more vote in the "support" column.

The only people who commented on CPAC's comments were myself and Yonder. Yonder's one of the ones that I can't tell which way he leans, and as I said, I support Portman.

I kind of feel like people are reading a bit much into things here if they have some sense of overwhelming negativity towards Portman or gay-supportier-than-thou out of this. O_o

Hypatian wrote:

Yonder's one of the ones that I can't tell which way he leans.

I am a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Yonder wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Yonder's one of the ones that I can't tell which way he leans.

I am a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

With a toffee center?

Since I don't live in Portman's state I don't know that my opinion matters much. I value every shift, I don't think standing against the GOP is a small thing.

There has been a lot of gay news in the past 24 hours, but Rubb Ed and I had a chance to spend five days together, so I didn't get to post much.

So, onto the review...

Hillary Clinton came out in full support of marriage equality yesterday. I could have sworn she already had, but many believe this is one of many moves as she contemplates running for President.

Welcome to the marriage equality club, Madam Secretary.

----------

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows a huge gain in support of marriage equality.

58% of Americans say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. This is a very dramatic switch from 2004 when only 32% showed support.

----------

In one of the most touching videos regarding the Prop. 8 issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, a young man named Daniel in Northern California, writes a letter to Chief Justice Roberts about how lucky he is to have two dads. Daniel was considered "unadoptable" because he suffers from Goldenhar Syndrome which affects the left side of his body.

----------

And in one of the most bizarre videos regarding non-discrimination laws in Nebraska, a Harvard-graduated doctor (MD) gives testimony that basically says, "Gay men are sluts, so they don't need legal protection from things like being fired from their jobs simply because they are gay. Oh, and I have nothing to say about how this affects lesbians because gay men are sluts. Oh, and did I mention that I am relying on 30-year-old data that makes no distinction between gay men or just men in general. Oh, and I don't think those gay sluts are bad people. Oh, and all people who get pancreatic cancer will die because we all die."

Oy.

----------

And Prince Harry shows he truly is a prince:

Prince Harry took girlfriend Cressida Bonas on a night out — and got chatted up by a man.

The young royal seemed unruffled as camp Vincenzo Ianniello passed him his phone number for a date.

The excited Italian told friends: “He promised to call me if he ever changes his mind about women. Or men.”

I have never understood why people get so upset when someone of the same gender hits on them. In a world as troubling as ours is, one would think that having someone find you attractive enough to invite you out on a date or for a roll in the hay would be a good thing.

Kudos to Prince Harry for handling it with class.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton ever came out specifically for marriage equality before, but she has certainly been vocal about how LGBT people are people too, and deserve to be treated as such. That somewhat fine point of distinction may be where the confusion is coming from, as I have seen in other comments/threads a similar feeling that she had done this already.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I have never understood why people get so upset when someone of the same gender hits on them. In a world as troubling as ours is, one would think that having someone find you attractive enough to invite you out on a date or for a roll in the hay would be a good thing.

Kudos to Prince Harry for handling it with class.

Pretty much this. If someone overcomes the considerable apprehension and social risk to state that they find you attractive, the very least you can do is thank them for the compliment and be civil. If you don't you don't deserve to get hit on by folks you find attractive.

I only get upset when men sexually harass me. Turns out I mind when women do it, too, but I get less of that.

Looks like the gay agenda to destroy marriage has struck another blow:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/20...

A United Methodist Church in North Carolina is taking a dramatic stand on the issue of marriage equality by announcing the immediate cessation of all its marriage-related services until the right to marry is granted to all couples, including ones of the same sex.
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I have never understood why people get so upset when someone of the same gender hits on them. In a world as troubling as ours is, one would think that having someone find you attractive enough to invite you out on a date or for a roll in the hay would be a good thing.

Kudos to Prince Harry for handling it with class.

So um, I may have more sex appeal than my wife, my incredibly hot, built like Jessica Rabbit wife. I get hit on by dudes kind of frequently.
She hates it because it inflates my ego.

I love it because I like free drinks. Also, it inflates my ego and puts a spring in my step that I still got it.

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to flirt or accept a drink with no intention of going further?

KingGorilla wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

I have never understood why people get so upset when someone of the same gender hits on them. In a world as troubling as ours is, one would think that having someone find you attractive enough to invite you out on a date or for a roll in the hay would be a good thing.

Kudos to Prince Harry for handling it with class.

So um, I may have more sex appeal than my wife, my incredibly hot, built like Jessica Rabbit wife. I get hit on by dudes kind of frequently.
She hates it because it inflates my ego.

I love it because I like free drinks. Also, it inflates my ego and puts a spring in my step that I still got it.

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to flirt or accept a drink with no intention of going further?

Yes, but that's just how the game is played

KingGorilla wrote:

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to flirt or accept a drink with no intention of going further?

Yes.

Kehama wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to flirt or accept a drink with no intention of going further?

Yes.

No. Neither you, nor anyone else is obligated to follow any attention you receive unsolicited from others with ANYTHING.

dunno why this one hits my hot button, but it does.

KingGorilla wrote:

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to flirt with no intention of going further?

Yup!

KingGorilla wrote:

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to accept a drink with no intention of going further?

Nope!

Apples and big gay oranges, my friend.

Jonman wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to flirt with no intention of going further?

Yup!

KingGorilla wrote:

Follow up, does it make me a c*ck tease to accept a drink with no intention of going further?

Nope!

Apples and big gay oranges, my friend.

Does it change things if the drink is an Appletini?

Phoenix Rev wrote:

There has been a lot of gay news in the past 24 hours, but Rubb Ed and I had a chance to spend five days together, so I didn't get to post much.

So, onto the review...

Hillary Clinton came out in full support of marriage equality yesterday. I could have sworn she already had, but many believe this is one of many moves as she contemplates running for President.

Welcome to the marriage equality club, Madam Secretary.

Who ever thought support for gay marriage would someday move towards becoming a political litmus test for a major party? Wonderfully amazing.