hey, Portman... How many grandkids will your son´s "marriage" produce for you?

If being married is happiness for gays, then it should be a requirement.

Soooo, your oft-spouted ethics were OK until you had to change them because of someone in your family.

How Pharonic.

Thank goodness he didn´t discover his son was a pedophile. Portman might have gone on a nationwide tour supporting sex with children.

"Yale?"

Way to stack the deck, pops.

Or does someone have photos/videos? Pardon my cynicism, but maybe this isn´t just about his son.

His son is 21 years old and Portman only found out "recently" that the kid is gay? HOGWASH, the kid didn´t "turn" gay, he´s been gay all of his life and daddy is too stupid or too much of a liar to admit he´s known this since his son was a little boy.

This is really off topic--but, remotely related.

Maybe that´s one of the reasons priests in the Roman Catholic Church are not allowed to get married. Sometimes emotions and family fidelity can get in the way of clear thinking.

Apparently, becoming a Senator requires one to turn in one´s logic gene.

#7 hit it squarely on the head. I am so sick of being played for a fool by these fools.

Shouldn´t that be an epoophany?

This has to be the reason he was not picked for VP - they knew this would come out. A close family member of ours is gay but that does not change how we feel about him but it also does not change our view on gay marriage. Civil unions for the purposes of benefits, hospital visitation, etc. fine but marriage is between a man and woman, as God defined.

Get the government out of rewarding or punishing various relationships, and this issue goes away the very next day.

I have a gay child and their union with their partner has brought about THREE wonderful grandchildren for us. Not in the usual way, of course, but they carry my name, just not my DNA.

Oh, by the way, she´s conservative to the core.

If the government wasn´t involved in playing favorites with people or companies, many other problems like political corruption would go away as well.

If you want "traditional" marriage, read the history books. For much of history, traditional marriage involved polygamy.

Throughout history, gays have made up around 3% of every society, except for Islamic ones where they will likely be beheaded for admitting it.

As my daughter once told me: "Do you think I would have chosen this for my life with all we have to endure? It´s far easier to be straight."

Spineless

I´m sick of being told that I´m a hater because I don´t agree with gay marriage. It was bad enough when liberals did it. Just because I don´t want gay marriage doesn´t mean I hate gay people. The Republican party is going to lose a lot of social conservative votes over this. Why wouldn´t a social conservative believe that Republicans will cave on abortion next?

I think OP nails it. Nobody really cares what consenting adults do with each other in private, but I chafe at calling these relationships a marriage and I´m surely not alone. As, I think, Hillary Clinton, of all folks, once said, "words mean things."

Portman´s moral foundation is built firmly with sand! Just amazing. What could be the next revelation from Portman....just wait.

So, it turns out that not only is Portman a smarmy, self righteous prig.

He´s a gullible, smarmy, self righteous prig.
.

Glad he wasn´t the veep choice. He creeped me out every time I saw him on TV.

That said, we cannot be intellectually honest in condemning him without remembering Vice President Cheney´s stand that the states have the right to choose whether gays should marry.

Thank you, #13, for your post. I have so many wonderful gay friends and it hurts me to see such hateful comments here.

Several of them are conservative and are harshly criticized for belonging to a party which turns its´ back on gays (see CPAC).

Bless you, #13, and Rob Portman, Dick Chaney, Newt Gingrich, and all the others who have gay family members who deserve their love and support.

#13, there is a relationship between morality and the laws passed by our reprentatives.


Libertarians beleive in nothing other than self-interest.

by your logic polygamy should be legal, as well as marrying your horse.

Re#13: So, you believe that your daughter and her "partner" are joined in Holy Matrimony in the eyes of God? I suppose that would be true if your god is the State.

I think the GOP should think long and hard about assuming all conservatives oppose gay marriage. I think there are many fiscal conservatives who think personal actions - as long as not illegal are not our business. Many know gay people and want them treated kindly. I think the GOP should come up with a platform supporting civil unions or marriage but stating religious organizations who don´t want them don´t have to perform them. Hard core opposition and vitriolic views alienate a big segment. We should be a big tent. This issue plays in the hands of liberals. We need to get pas it and recognize there are many different views on this issue.

After the civil union law passed in Illinois, adoption agencies that declined to evaluate prospective gay foster parents on religious grounds had their contracts terminated by the state. There is also a push for gay marriage in Illinois, despite the civil union law.

One can love a child without agreeing with their life-style. Not an equivalent, but mothers visit their children in jail, no matter what reason they are in there for.
They don´t condone the crime, but still love the child.

Isn´t this the outcome we wish all liberals to experience --where they are "mugged by reality"? Leftists are sure that ObamaCare is "common sense legislation" because they have no experience with running a business and making a payroll. We all know that they would no longer vote for Democrat Party candidates if they knew what we knew. So, now Senator Portman knows what Dick Cheney knows. If your offspring turns out to be homosexual, you want still want them to be free and experience equal rights under the law.

My father was quite happy to have a granddaughter from his gay son. And that granddaughter did share his DNA. It is too bad that the gay son had to emigrate away from a Conservative state to make that happen.

I certainly agree with #13 about this:

Get the government out of rewarding or punishing various relationships, and this issue goes away the very next day.

This is the stance our conservatives should take going into elections. It was solely because democrats purposefully inserted the then-non-issue of birth control at the first debate that cost us the election.
Dems played their game well... it was a pure briar patch moment; and those conservatives running for office just kept fumbling the ball, answering questions that were not relevant to that election and should not have been asked.

If our side took that position and stood by it firmly, it would be a totally different ballgame.


#13´s statement is so simple that it could be a game changer.

#22 you are reading WAY too much into my post. I said nothing of the sort. What the heck is Holy Matrimony in the eyes of God? That´s not how they define their relationship.

If someone wants to "marry" their horse, I´m fine with that. It´s simply not the government´s role to play favorites with our tax monies. She believes the same thing.

I don´t care if it´s with banks, car companies, "green" energy, or "marriage".

She and her parner are great, tax-paying citizens raising great kids. They pay their bills, and live quiet, respectful lives. They are loved by their coworkers, neighbors and friends.

If you don´t want to "recognize" their relationship in the eyes of your church, fine, but don´t presume to speak for God. Wife and I are Christian, and we always see a red flag when someone loves to speak for God.

I know of few conservatives who have problems with gay people. I know of lots of liberals that do, though. Ask a black person on the street. But marriage - no. There are tons of practical reasons to oppose, just read Ann Coulter´s column from a couple of years ago. And contrary to what lots of people say - there are a large percentage of gays who are gay by choice (they are not really gay - they just subscribe to the gay life style). Just ask any gay person.

Discovering that a relative of yours (even an immediate relative) doesn´t have the power to make real something that´s not. Relationships between same-sex couples are NOT just like man-woman relationships. So legislating that the two be affirmed as the same is legislating a lie.

Reality doesn´t conform to our desire or our will. Relativism is a form of dementia.

Rob Portman´s son´s "happiness" comes before... ? Yet another politician for whom there are no limits.

(sorry -- premature end of remark)

If we´re going to pass a law that says gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, let´s legislate, too, that from now on, oranges are apples. (And let´s dismiss every disagreement as ´bigoted´ and every person opposing it as ´hateful´.)

#27--shouldn´t the government want to encourage traditional marriages? We are already in a crisis state as to traditional marriage, with the high divorce rate and having children out of wedlock. The social costs are enormous. Taking away the marital deduction or other benefits would drive the nail in the coffin. The government should to more to encourage (note: I said encourage, not mandate) traditional marriage, not less.

No. 28 says he and his wife are Christians who always see red when someone purports to speak for God.

Guess that doesn´t include them, though, because they seem pretty certain what the Bible says doesn´t count, and who could have told them that except God? (Unless it was some other spirit.)

Persnally, #28, we use Scripture to measure ourselves, and not measure others.

I don´t know what God thinks of my child´s relationship. That between her and Him. He made her. She talks to Him.

I don´t presume to quote Scriptures and then use that to control or demean the lives of others.

Please point out where I say I am determining what "counts" acording to God. Pro tip: Don´t bother. I never stated that.

First princiiples are the same under all circumstances. One member of one family who deviates from first principles should not be cause to change what is. We should tolerate differences, while adhering to what is.

First principles should not be adjusted for individual members of society. Stability is based upon adherence to a moral order; outside of that order we exhibit tolerance and love.

Re#28: I certainly would not presume to speak for God. He has spoken for himself quite eloquently on the subject of homosexuality through the Scriptures. If one does not believe in the Christian Bible or believes and does not choose to adhere to what is there, it is no concern of mine. My position on homosexual "marriage" is the same as my position on most issues: the government should not be involved AT ALL. If two(or more) people want to live together and call it being married, I care not a whit. That is between them and God. They will stand before Him by and by. But by insisting that the government establish homosexual "marriage" by statute, it becomes a public issue and like any other public issue I will exercise my first amendment right to voice my opposition.

It is an American tragedy that so many people are being deceived by political correctness into disobeying God’s laws and readily accepting man’s laws that violate God’s laws. Abortion violates the Commandment of “Thou shalt not murder.” Government approval of gay marriage violates the very clear admonitions cited in Old and New Testaments about that lifestyle; Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were full of sin. Like nations throughout history that have lost their moral compass, America will reap what it has sown. God’s laws must, and should, prevail over man’s laws.

#13 your daughter and her fellow stealer of other women´s babies can play whatever name games they want, they will. never. be. married.

You know why?

Because they aren´t STRAIGHT.

MARRIAGE is between a MAN and WOMAN...it is a BRIDGE, something that spans the gap between two genders, that creates a connection that no homosexual will EVER comprehend. EVER. What can they build if they are on the same side of the river?! Homosexuals will NEVER ´get´ the bond between a man and woman that is created in marriage because there will NEVER be that bridge.

But you know if it makes them and others FEEL GOOD to play word games, go ahead. Create lies. Everyone knows and thinks it anyway: gays will NEVER be MARRIED.

Clearly this supposed change of heart regarding same sex marriage came along because of a personal conflict of interest involving a family member. No more need be said about this particular wimpy Republican.

I like the idea of coming up with a simple statement to neutralize this issue - like what # 27 said. We can agree to disagree but as long as gays are law abiding and pay their taxes - if marriage is important to them then why not? I think they just want acceptance to live their lives and not be thought of as perverts when they didn´t choose it. Maybe once they discover the marriage penalty in the tax code they´ll help get rid of it. - Or pay more taxes with the rest of us. We have bigger issues and the media will use this issue to distract from them.

#13: Again, thank you for your post. I am a conservative and read and participate in this site every day. Sometimes I cringe at some of the things that are said. Many of the participants here really are racist, and homophobic ( I hate both of those terms) and reinforce the stereotype we get stuck with.

I wish some of you could just hear yourselves.

I think we will never win another National election. There are just too many nutty people on our side.

Regarding hated terms, #43 -- Why are we not allowed by our elitist re-creators to disagree with the norming of homosexuality or to dislike the efforts to prioritize their feelings over reality and truth in the law, without being dismissed as simply being AFRAID of them or HATING them?

Nobody has the right or authority to tell me what I believe or what I´ve said. And those who presume to do that are essentially trying to provoke a physical altercation.