Senator changes gay marriage stance

digitalbeachbum's picture

This conservative senator changed his opinion on gay marriage because his son is gay. He wants his son, who he loves a lot, to have the same opportunities as his brother and sister.

WTF?

What a fucking douche bag.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488--politics.html

The problem I have with this is this asshole says he is a conservative and now he changes his mind to fit his personal relationship with his son. If he didn't have a son that was gay then he wouldn't have changed his mind. The prick shouldn't be in office.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:This

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This conservative senator changed his opinion on gay marriage because his son is gay. He wants his son, who he loves a lot, to have the same opportunities as his brother and sister.

WTF?

What a fucking douche bag.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-senator-reverses-gay-marriage-stance-son-comes-065826488--politics.html

The problem I have with this is this asshole says he is a conservative and now he changes his mind to fit his personal relationship with his son. If he didn't have a son that was gay then he wouldn't have changed his mind. The prick shouldn't be in office.

 

So you prefer that he remains a bigot? Maybe if his son wasn't gay he never would have changed his mind. Naturally, when we have a personal stake in some political issue we think about it a lot more and the resulting decision from a great deal of thought is often different from the initial knee jerk reaction. I think Mr. Portman should be applauded for realizing that his previous actions were a mistake and having the balls to come out very publicly and acknowledge it. It will be interesting to see how the party reacts and if they are going to try to throw Portman under the bus over this. 

 

I think Portman's explanation of why he has changed his position so radically was extremely well written. It is something I can only hope that those conservatives who claim to be for personal liberty and limited government seriously think about it as it applies to these types of social issues. 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

I debated mentioning that

I debated mentioning that "at least he did change" but it this is a guy who co-sponsored the defense of marriage act. Now he is reversing his stance...

I say, "great!", but how many other assholes in our government feel being gay is wrong but would change as soon as their son or daughter comes forth and says "I'm gay". Is this an example that the conservative stance that "gay is wrong" is actually a bunch of hyperbole? That they don't actually believe it?

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Brian37's picture

Yea, but is it "unions" or

Yea, but is it "unions" or "marriage", because "unions" are nothing but the same old "separate but equal" crap. If someone lives like they are married and shares a dwelling and sex and bank account and bills, long term, that is marriage.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Yea, but is it

Brian37 wrote:

Yea, but is it "unions" or "marriage", because "unions" are nothing but the same old "separate but equal" crap. If someone lives like they are married and shares a dwelling and sex and bank account and bills, long term, that is marriage.

 

Rob Portman wrote:

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.

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

 

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.

 

Over the past decade, nine states and the District of Columbia have recognized marriage for same-sex couples. It is understandable to feel cautious about making a major change to such an important social institution, but the experience of the past decade shows us that marriage for same-sex couples has not undercut traditional marriage. In fact, over the past 10 years, the national divorce rate has declined.

.....

Rob Portman wrote:

I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.

I interpret his comments as supportive of gay marriage. I agree with you that the whole "civil union" idea is bullshit. I did hear an interview with him where he said that legalization of gay marriage should come through the state level since marriage is currently regulated at the state level, which I happen to agree with. 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I debated mentioning that "at least he did change" but it this is a guy who co-sponsored the defense of marriage act. Now he is reversing his stance...

I say, "great!", but how many other assholes in our government feel being gay is wrong but would change as soon as their son or daughter comes forth and says "I'm gay". Is this an example that the conservative stance that "gay is wrong" is actually a bunch of hyperbole? That they don't actually believe it?

I think it is an example that discriminating against people is a lot easier when you never see them. There are probably many people who are homophobic/anti-gay that don't even really know why. They just grew up in an era when it was socially acceptable/encouraged to discriminate against gays and they are told by their little black book that it is a sin; they didn't come to a conscious decision, rather they just absorbed the attitude of those around them. I'm sure many of them would change their views if a son, daughter or even a close friend was gay because it would cause them to actually think about their beliefs. Unfortunately, there are some that would rather disown their children, but I think a large number of them would be more reasonable. 

My father used to be extremely homophobic and was staunchly against gay marriage. Over the last decade or so I have argued with him on the issue multiple times- which mostly consisted of me asking him the simple question "How does it harm you?" "How does it change anything about your marriage?" Two questions he was completely unable to answer and unable to reconcile his position with his broader political philosophy of minimal government intrusion. While still homophobic, he has finally admitted that gay marriage is not such a frightening thing. I think there are a lot of conservatives like my dad who simply grew up in an era where gays were heavily discriminated against and just adopted the attitude without really thinking about it. And I think that is why gay marriage has been steadily gaining support because the more it is an issue, people start to think. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Brian37's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Yea, but is it "unions" or "marriage", because "unions" are nothing but the same old "separate but equal" crap. If someone lives like they are married and shares a dwelling and sex and bank account and bills, long term, that is marriage.

 

Rob Portman wrote:

 

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.

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

 

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.

 

Over the past decade, nine states and the District of Columbia have recognized marriage for same-sex couples. It is understandable to feel cautious about making a major change to such an important social institution, but the experience of the past decade shows us that marriage for same-sex couples has not undercut traditional marriage. In fact, over the past 10 years, the national divorce rate has declined.

.....

Rob Portman wrote:

I’ve thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.

I interpret his comments as supportive of gay marriage. I agree with you that the whole "civil union" idea is bullshit. I did hear an interview with him where he said that legalization of gay marriage should come through the state level since marriage is currently regulated at the state level, which I happen to agree with. 

 

 

 

Sorry Beyond, you cannot take all issues and make them all state issues. Our Constitution has a supremacy clause, and we are not talking about business issues or traffic laws here. Replace gays with "inter racial marriage", and see if you think that should be a "states rights issue", because the same thing was argued with that in our history.

Gays being allowed to marry is a rights issue, not a states rights issue. If you are going to support gays don't be half assed about it. If everything is always states rights all the time 100% of the time, you do realize state Constitutions even today deny atheists public office or giving testimony in court. Laws like that have existed and still exist.

Do you still think everything is "states rights".

 

The Constitution says we are all equal and that always over rides states rights. Otherwise why have a Constitution at all.

Your problem I see just about on every issue is the same. You get stuck on simple solutions when life is much more complex than the simplicity you project on it. I doubt if you were gay you'd argue for state's rights in a state that denies you marriage. Seriously Beyond, you need to think about others for once and ditch your stupid Ayn Rand theory of life.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Sorry Beyond,

Brian37 wrote:

Sorry Beyond, you cannot take all issues and make them all state issues. Our Constitution has a supremacy clause, and we are not talking about business issues or traffic laws here. Replace gays with "inter racial marriage", and see if you think that should be a "states rights issue", because the same thing was argued with that in our history.

Gays being allowed to marry is a rights issue, not a states rights issue. If you are going to support gays don't be half assed about it. If everything is always states rights all the time 100% of the time, you do realize state Constitutions even today deny atheists public office or giving testimony in court. Laws like that have existed and still exist.

Do you still think everything is "states rights".

 

The Constitution says we are all equal and that always over rides states rights. Otherwise why have a Constitution at all.

Your problem I see just about on every issue is the same. You get stuck on simple solutions when life is much more complex than the simplicity you project on it. I doubt if you were gay you'd argue for state's rights in a state that denies you marriage. Seriously Beyond, you need to think about others for once and ditch your stupid Ayan Rand theory of life.

 

There is no federal law regarding interracial marriages and there never has been one. The only federal law regarding marriage is "Defense of Marriage Act" and the whole argument that it is unconstitutional lies in that the government does not have the power to regulate marriage because that power is left to the states. If the federal government can pass a law forcing states to recognize gay marriage, than DOMA is constitutional to because they have the power to refuse to recognize it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the federal government has the power to declare what is a legitimate marriage or it does not. Currently the only law they passed is anti-gay. So do you really want them to have that power? 

The Constitution applies to the states as well as the federal government. You do not need a federal law to say the Constitution applies to the states because it already does. Difficult to use the Constitution to force states to implement gay marriage because you would really have to stretch the law. I don't see how you could use the Constitution to force gay marriage given the court cases regarding bigamy and polygamy. 

I think the most desirable way is to leave the choice up to the states. Several states have already shown their willingness to legalize gay marriage and I don't think it will be long before all but the most conservative states do. Over time, those holdouts would fall one at a time. You don't have to use a bazooka to solve every problem. Marriage has always been regulated by the states. There is and never has been a such thing as a "federal marriage license" and I don't think there should be. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Brian37's picture

There has never been a

There has never been a Federal Law? That is your argument?

So how the fuck does that change that in our past STATES did say "you cant marry a black person if you are white"?

Quote:
I think the most desirable way is to leave the choice up to the states.

BULL FUCKING SHIT,

THERE ARE STILL STATES TODAY WHO HAVE IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ATHEISTS.

It is not all states rights vs federal, it is a balancing act and case by case, but not on human rights issues. It may be for commerce and land use, or traffic laws. But not on issues of equality. To make equality a debate is fucking sick.

I live in North Carolina, my state has voted to ban gay marriage. If the Supreme Court has any fucking balls at all, they will strike this vote down.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:There has

Brian37 wrote:

There has never been a Federal Law? That is your argument?

So how the fuck does that change that in our past STATES did say "you cant marry a black person if you are white"?

It wasn't changed by the federal government. Interracial marriages were mostly legalized by the states. By the time of the Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)] only 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws. The federal government had nothing to do with it. So if you are comparing the two, I don't see why there is a need for federal laws in regards to gay marriage.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Quote:
I think the most desirable way is to leave the choice up to the states.

BULL FUCKING SHIT,

THERE ARE STILL STATES TODAY WHO HAVE IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ATHEISTS.

Your point? Anything that is a violation of the First Amendment can be brought to court if they are ever enforced. The reality is that most state constitutions hold a wide variety of laws that are no longer enforced. Again, no federal law is needed, we already have the Constitution.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is not all states rights vs federal, it is a balancing act and case by case, but not on human rights issues. It may be for commerce and land use, or traffic laws. But not on issues of equality. To make equality a debate is fucking sick.

To shy away from making anything a debate is fucking sick and tyrannical. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I live in North Carolina, my state has voted to ban gay marriage. If the Supreme Court has any fucking balls at all, they will strike this vote down.

On what legal basis? The legal argument is exceptionally weak. The Supreme Court is a Court that interprets the law, they don't just change things because you think it is a good idea. We will know when the Court rules in Hollingsworth vs. Perry which will be argued on March 26th. I wouldn't count on the Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. I wouldn't even count on them to overturn DOMA, which imo has a much stronger case.

If you want to legalize gay marriage you will have to change the attitudes of the voters. Sucks to be on the losing side of democracy doesn't it? Welcome to my world. Rather ironic that you were the one (falsely) accusing me of crying like a baby when all my votes lost. Now you lose one and you want the Supreme Court to whirl through and erase it.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Brian37's picture

"Were mostly legalized by

"Were mostly legalized by the states"

So the fuck  what? But what if they had not? And for a long time they did not. You do know what the Supreme Court is for right? Is it there to always side with the states? I bet if you check it's history you can find cases where it said to states and or voters "Sorry, but that law violates the individuals rights".

You are so one sided on this crap.

It is not STATES VS FEDERAL, IT NEVER HAS BEEN. It has always been CASE BY CASE.

But when you look at the totality of our progress, LONG TERM, inclusion wins and discrimination loses. Because of the system when the States cant or wont stand up for a minority those minorities have the opportunity to appeal to the federal level, "THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE". That is not a right afforded solely to a majority.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Brian37's picture

Let me give you an example

Let me give you an example you might understand,

If it is all about states rights, what if a state voted to ban private business ownership? Would you still be for states rights?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Sinphanius's picture

Again?

Brian37 wrote:
If it is all about states rights, what if a state voted to ban private business ownership? Would you still be for states rights?

Speaking as someone who has actually read and comprehended Beyond Saving's numerous extremely detailed and clearly typed posts rather than being the sort of person who simply imagines him as some pathetically one note straw man of a financial and political philosophy said person so clearly knows not the first slightest most basic element about but continues to rail against in posts after posts that manage to be, paradoxically enough, both more and more repetitive and more and more incoherent with each passing thread...

My guess is he would probably be fine with it so long as he could speak out against it and, baring that not working, leave the state for a state that more closely fit his political and economic views.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:"Were mostly

Brian37 wrote:

"Were mostly legalized by the states"

So the fuck  what? But what if they had not? And for a long time they did not. You do know what the Supreme Court is for right? Is it there to always side with the states? I bet if you check it's history you can find cases where it said to states and or voters "Sorry, but that law violates the individuals rights".

You are so one sided on this crap.

I quoted the relevant Supreme Court case. As I pointed out the states did legalize it, so theorizing about what might have happened if they didn't is academic.

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is not STATES VS FEDERAL, IT NEVER HAS BEEN. It has always been CASE BY CASE.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the authority to regulate marriage? As I pointed out, the argument of gay rights advocates in the case against DOMA rests primarily on states rights over federal power. To turn around and argue at the same time that the federal government does have the power to regulate marriage but only the way you want is irrational. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But when you look at the totality of our progress, LONG TERM, inclusion wins and discrimination loses. Because of the system when the States cant or wont stand up for a minority those minorities have the opportunity to appeal to the federal level, "THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE". That is not a right afforded solely to a majority.

 

Where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected? 

Do you believe that polygamy is also protected? 

Polyandry? 

How about a line marriage? 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

Beyond Saving's picture

Brian37 wrote:Let me give

Brian37 wrote:

Let me give you an example you might understand,

If it is all about states rights, what if a state voted to ban private business ownership? Would you still be for states rights?

States have and continue to ban a large variety of private businesses, I bitch about it all the time. I am not allowed to open up a casino, brothel or sell pot etc.  

I suppose it is theoretically possible for a state to go completely communist/socialist and seize all private property. I'm not sure there is anything in the Constitution that would prevent it except the 5th Amendment which only requires "just compensation". There could be some argument under Article 1 Section 10

Quote:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

Although I think that legal argument would be weak since the clause was initially intended to prevent state legislators from granting special debt exemptions to favored individuals. In my opinion, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from having an internal economic system that is not capitalist. I would fight it like crazy, but would prefer that type of stuff happens at a state level so I could go to a free state. Much better than letting it happen at the national level.

If a state did outlaw private business you would have many issues where it would conflict with federal law where the federal government would have some control with the commerce clause. How all of that would shake out is an incredibly complex legal question. It would take several books to really run through all of the potential conflicts.  

Our country was designed with the intent that the states could have different models for running things and those models that worked well could be adapted/mimicked by other states while models that failed would cause minimal damage by being localized. I think that is a really brilliant idea, and one that we have lost sight of the last 100 years as the federal government has become substantially more powerful and increasingly everyone's default answer to solve whatever problem they imagine exists. I think it is great the Massachusetts could pass Romneycare and show us all how well or how poorly it works. I think it is terrible that (pretty much) the same law was passed at the national level and forced on all of us.

All I really want is one state that gives its citizens freedom, I don't really give a shit what kind of cesspool you decide to live in. I have no desire to control your life.    

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving wrote:I think

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think it is an example that discriminating against people is a lot easier when you never see them. There are probably many people who are homophobic/anti-gay that don't even really know why. They just grew up in an era when it was socially acceptable/encouraged to discriminate against gays and they are told by their little black book that it is a sin; they didn't come to a conscious decision, rather they just absorbed the attitude of those around them. I'm sure many of them would change their views if a son, daughter or even a close friend was gay because it would cause them to actually think about their beliefs. Unfortunately, there are some that would rather disown their children, but I think a large number of them would be more reasonable. 

My father used to be extremely homophobic and was staunchly against gay marriage. Over the last decade or so I have argued with him on the issue multiple times- which mostly consisted of me asking him the simple question "How does it harm you?" "How does it change anything about your marriage?" Two questions he was completely unable to answer and unable to reconcile his position with his broader political philosophy of minimal government intrusion. While still homophobic, he has finally admitted that gay marriage is not such a frightening thing. I think there are a lot of conservatives like my dad who simply grew up in an era where gays were heavily discriminated against and just adopted the attitude without really thinking about it. And I think that is why gay marriage has been steadily gaining support because the more it is an issue, people start to think. 

I agree.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams