Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Hard Line Republican Comes out in Support for Gay Marriage >

Hard Line Republican Comes out in Support for Gay Marriage

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Hard Line Republican Comes out in Support for Gay Marriage

Old 03-15-2013, 04:52 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 377
Default Hard Line Republican Comes out in Support for Gay Marriage

This is truly a heartwarming story. I thought I would share it.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politi...age/index.html


You probably recognize Sen. Rob Portman from his tireless campaigning for Mitt Romney in 2012. He was even on the short list to be Romney's running mate.

He's been a leading Republican voice on economic issues for four decades.

Now, the prominent Ohio conservative will be known for something else: reversing his hardline position against gay marriage.

He invited CNN to his Senate office to reveal the news.

"I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry," Portman told CNN.

It has to do with another revelation, one deeply personal. His 21-year-old son, Will, is gay.

"I've come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I've had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay," said Portman.

Will Portman told his father and mother he is gay two years ago, when he was a freshman at Yale University.

"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," said Portman.

What was the Republican senator's reaction?

"Love. Support," responded Portman.

The president and the nation have evolved on same-sex marriage

And complete surprise. He told CNN that he never suspected that his son was gay.

Portman says his son, now a junior in college, helped him work through his decision to announce his change in position on gay marriage and blessed the idea of publicly announcing Will Portman's sexuality.

"I think he's happy and, you know, proud that we've come to this point, but he let it be my decision just as you know, it's going to be his decision as to the role he plays going forward in this whole issue," said Portman.
hockeydad is offline  
Old 03-15-2013, 05:13 AM
  #2  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,318
Default

What's so heart warming about this? You don't even believe In marriage the way you run around on your supposedly cancer stricken wife. It amazes me the the contradictions you post.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-15-2013, 05:46 AM
  #3  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,318
Default

Hey, can someone explain to me what a "hard line" republican is? Are there any "hard line" democrats?

If anything, I think we need to give Romney another thumbs up for not picking this guy as a running mate when all the insiders were urging him to make him VP. What a mistake Portman would have been.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-15-2013, 06:18 AM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
C. Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kountze, Texas
Posts: 4,733
Default

It works!! It works!
The Republican outreach works.
HD is now a "hard line Republican."

C. Davis
C. Davis is online now  
Old 03-15-2013, 06:28 AM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
RobertSubnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,738
Default

Are there any "hard line" democrats?
No. The democrats are all warm and fuzzy doing everything they can to save: the children, the animals, the planet, etc. It is only republicans that are "hard line."
RobertSubnet is offline  
Old 03-15-2013, 01:54 PM
  #6  
Spike
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: iowa
Posts: 94
Default

Initially, I was of the opinion that gay marriage is okay because the government surely didn't think they were defining it for religions. Until I realized that they were and they penalize religious institutions, like catholic adoptive organizations, for not complying with the governments definition of marriage and allowing all married couples, including homosexuals to adopt from them.

Unfortunately our government fails to realize that it wasn't the founder of marriage. God established marriage. It is 100% related to religion.

The government should have no say over religious activity such as marriage. It's not theirs to tamper with.

One could say, too that it's fine for the government to allow "civil unions" so heterosexual/homosexual couples may receive the same governmental benefits. But that begs the question- where should it end? There are groups of people that love each other, so should two men and one woman be able to have the same benefits?
iowa whitetail is offline  
Old 03-15-2013, 10:53 PM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 1,778
Default

Pot not stirred.

sorry
Tundra10 is offline  
Old 03-15-2013, 11:13 PM
  #8  
Nontypical Buck
 
BigBuck22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,291
Default

BigBuck22 is offline  
Old 03-16-2013, 03:49 AM
  #9  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,318
Default

There he goes again trying to equate personal choice with civil rights.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 03-16-2013, 05:03 AM
  #10  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Originally Posted by iowa whitetail View Post
Initially, I was of the opinion that gay marriage is okay because the government surely didn't think they were defining it for religions. Until I realized that they were and they penalize religious institutions, like catholic adoptive organizations, for not complying with the governments definition of marriage and allowing all married couples, including homosexuals to adopt from them.

Unfortunately our government fails to realize that it wasn't the founder of marriage. God established marriage. It is 100% related to religion.

The government should have no say over religious activity such as marriage. It's not theirs to tamper with.

One could say, too that it's fine for the government to allow "civil unions" so heterosexual/homosexual couples may receive the same governmental benefits. But that begs the question- where should it end? There are groups of people that love each other, so should two men and one woman be able to have the same benefits?
You need to think this through again. You can put a religious meaning into it if you want. My husband and I had two weddings. The first was in front of a judge, the second was a year and a half later in a nuptial mass.

If you want to get married, you go to the county clerk and apply for a marriage license. Someone there will determine if you qualiify under state law, not church law. And the laws very from state to state. After you are issued your license, you can arrange with a judge or magistrate, or a priest or minister to officiate at your marriage. The official doesn't marry you. What you do is marry each other. Marriage is basically a civil contract governed by state law.

It also varies by country. In Italy, only civil marriages are recognized as legal, although you can have a nuptial mass if you desire.

In ***an, you can have a Shinto, Buddhist, or Christian ceremony if you like, but your not married unless the couple goes down to the local clerk and registers, takes just a few mintues.

Athiests and agnostics can get married. It really has nothing to do with religion unless you want to involve religion.

Now what happens if things don't work out? Do you go back to the priest, minister, rabbi and get unmarried? Nope, you have to go before a judge and get divorced. That's because you're terminating a civil contract which allows certain rights to the parties. The divorce recognizes that those rights are terminated. The couple can agree to certain conditions to go along with the divorce. And the state will make sure that the children are cared for appropriately.

So what's the problem with gay "marriage?" It's a perversion, that's the problem. A long, long, time ago, in this galaxy, we humans recognized a bond between a male and a female, sometimes a bond between one male and more than one female. This worked out well for a number of reasons, and also contributed to the well-being and security of any children. Gays, of course, don't have children, which is our clue to why one is not born gay. I believe there are worse things one can do than engage in homosexual behavior, but based on our long history as human beings it is quite simply a perversion. And based on that history, gay "marriage" just seems ridiculous.

I have to include one observation that many have made. It's been pointed out that about half of non-gay marriages end in divorce, so marriage doesn't really mean that much anymore. We could also note that, in some segments of our society, up to 80% of children are born illegitimate.

Apparently we need to do some serious work on our value system.
sachiko is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.