Ohio GOP Senator Announces Support For Gay Marriage After Son Comes Out To Him http://www.businessinsider.com/rob-portman-comes-out-in-favor-of-gay-marriage-2013-3/comments en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:45:49 -0500 Joe Weisenthal http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514873e6eab8eaee7c000006 definitions are not carved in stone Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:19:18 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514873e6eab8eaee7c000006 No, you haven't. Scott and Mary can marry; Steve and John cannot. How is that not discriminating against Steve and John in violation of the Equal Protection Clause? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51438b0a69bedd207400000b Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:56:42 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51438b0a69bedd207400000b I've answered your question from a legal perspective over and over in every post. You can keep asking it and I can keep giving the same answer, but that seems a waste of time http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143895d6bb3f7a024000004 Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:49:33 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143895d6bb3f7a024000004 There is nothing to explain to them. Go back and read my comments for comprehension. Governments of all forms have adopted this religious institution. I said that clearly. You just didn't read before spouting off an uninformed sacastic comment and showing your ignorance. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514385c36bb3f7f11d000013 definitions are not carved in stone Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:34:11 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514385c36bb3f7f11d000013 No, my issue is that writing laws in which one group of people are allowed to do something (straight consenting adults can get married) while banning another group of people from doing the exact same thing (gay consenting adults cannot get married) is discriminatory and barred by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. What, exactly, is unconstitutional about laws permitting gay marriage? No law, to my knowledge, compels an officiant to go against their religious beliefs to perform the ceremony - and if it did, I would be against it. But again, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability of two consenting adults to enter into a contract, plain and simple. You say that a portion of the population isn't allowed to do that, I say the entire population is. Which of us is discriminating? You did not answer my earlier question: If Fred and Sue can get married, why can't Steve and Jon? Because Steve and Jon aren't being given access to the same set of rights Fred and Sue have. How is that NOT trampling on Steve and Jon's rights?? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51438068ecad048e22000002 Anoka Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:20 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51438068ecad048e22000002 But, the be sure of this. . . the ride will end. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51437ed0eab8ea6b07000019 Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:04:32 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51437ed0eab8ea6b07000019 Your "issue" is whether you can convince a State or the Federal governent to write unconstitutional laws and convince the courts to ignore the effect. Your feigning misunderstanding of how everyone already has the same rights is completely transparent. I know who you are and I know your goals. It's obvious to everyone. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51437af569beddf44e000003 Anoka Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:48:05 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51437af569beddf44e000003 Explain that to the Marriage License Bureaus in every state. The Federal and all state governments don't agree. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51436fe1eab8ea7763000021 definitions are not carved in stone Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:00:49 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51436fe1eab8ea7763000021 1. Of course the debate over the constitutionality of those laws have not ended yet, but that was neither my point nor what I said. What I said was that definitions are not carved in stone and can change. 2. Point 2 had nothing to do with religious freedom. It had to do with whether the term "outdated definition" is a contradiction unto itself. Technically it is, because if it is still the definition at least to some, it isn't really outdated. 3. By barring the right to marry from SOME while granting it to OTHERS, YOU are the one who is trampling on other peoples' rights. If Fred and Sue can get married, why can't Steve and Jon? Because Steve and Jon aren't being given access to the same set of rights Fred and Sue have. How is that NOT trampling on Steve and Jon's rights?? Marriage has moved far beyond its history as a religious institution - which, incidentally, was not its original construction either. The fact that you think marriage is inexorably tied to religion and is nothing without it is proven wrong by the simple fact that Atheists and Agnostics can be married. I have no problem whatsoever with a priest refusing to marry two men or two women. If I did, THAT would be me trampling on their religious freedom. My issue is only with what the Government does or does not allow, which is wholly separate from what a religion might allow. You do not need a member of the clergy to be married. All you need is a license from the state and a justice of the peace. You might think religion is an all-important factor in marriage...but it simply isn't. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51436b506bb3f7346c00000a Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:41:20 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51436b506bb3f7346c00000a 1. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the litigation over the constitutionality of these laws is over. It clearly is not. 2. I'm not splitting hairs. Religious freedom is so important in America it was the impetus for our beginning. 3. Again, everyone you and I know have the same inalienable rights. What you don't have the right to do to to trample on other people's rights. "Marriage WAS a religious institution...". This reads like an admission. I believe, as was clear in my first post, we should pursue better civil union laws which can be called whatever society prefers. It's becoming clear to me that your entire purpose is the hurt people of every religious stripe. If people of religious belief have hurt you causing your hate, that's very sad, but no excuse for your attempts to trample religious freedom. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143616169bedd4a0b000021 definitions are not carved in stone Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:58:57 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143616169bedd4a0b000021 You know who I compare people like you to? The kind of people who, 200 years ago, said "of course black people are 3/5 of a person! That's what they are by definition!" People like that always end up on the wrong side of history. Enjoy the ride. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143610becad04c76500000d definitions are not carved in stone Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:57:31 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143610becad04c76500000d 1. It's definitely not impossible. Quite a few states have already done it. 2. Technically you're correct, but it's a saying and you know what I meant about it, so why are you splitting hairs? 3. As long as I know people who aren't allowed to marry the person they love, who is old enough to be able to consent to same, no, it isn't inclusive. Marriage WAS a religious institution, that is certainly true. But as far as the government is concerned, it's nothing more than a contract between two consenting adults. Case in point: you can be a married Atheist, if you want to be. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514352246bb3f7613e000002 shall7070 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:53:56 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514352246bb3f7613e000002 WTF? You're gonna claim that Obama's changing stances on gay marriage had nothing to do with politics? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143518069bedd0464000028 Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:51:12 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143518069bedd0464000028 "The whole point of the pro-gay marriage side is to change the definition from your outdated one to a new one that is more inclusive." Your statement makes absolutley no logical sense. 1. You can't be "for" something that by definition is impossible. 2. Saying "outdated definition" is a contradiction in terms. 3. Marriage is completley and totally inclusive, with the exception of minors. Any man age can marry any woman of their chosing and vice versa. Marriage is absolutely a religious institution. Are you under the mistaken impression that the United States pre-dates the religions that defined the institution? The US federal and state governments have recognised the institution. Religions did not recognise a government institution. I don't know how else to make this simple for you. Go read any history book. If you don't understand how the free exersice cause in the 1st admendment applies then you've missed the entire point of the debate. I'm not sure how to get you up to speed with the national conversation. Sorry. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51434308eab8eae77c000012 definitions are not carved in stone Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:49:28 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51434308eab8eae77c000012 The whole point of the pro-gay marriage side is to change the definition from your outdated one to a new one that is more inclusive. Just because it is CURRENTLY defined as an institution between a man and a woman (it is most certainly not "defined" solely as a religious institution), does not mean it always must be defined that way - ask the numerous states who have legalized gay marriage. What on earth does the Free Exercise clause of the freedom of religion portion of the First Amendment have to do with this story?? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51433b826bb3f75c12000017 Typical Republican Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:17:22 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51433b826bb3f75c12000017 A typical Republican for sure. Its not OK for you other people but now that its a part of my family, its alright. We're proud. This is why so many people despise Republicans and for what they stand. This is why we hate politics (not just Republicans but politics as a whole) They (politicians) have for 40 years tried to regulate morality. It can not be done NOT EVER on any matter. Politicians need to get out of our daily lives on many more levels than just our sexual orientation. They use these issues because they are emotional issues and everybody cries and throws their hands in the air when the real issues (where is all our money going) that we should be focusing on get swept under the rug and hidden daily. For instance, Abortion. They talk and debate abortion and the churches get all wired and fired up and have rallies and meeting and protests. All those issues are triggered intentionally. Its a diversion and the powers that be use the issue and the churches (who are so goofy they cant seem to figure it out) to take our eyes off the ball so to speak. Happens everyday in this country. Over and over and over and over again and again. Look at the history in the last 50 years and you can see the patterns. Want to know what is in front of you, then look behind you. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143396169bedde825000016 ZMark Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:08:17 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143396169bedde825000016 Typical Republican, ban it until you flip-flop and make it mandatory. I thought gays wanted government out of the bedroom? Now they're demanding the "right" to a government marriage. Government should not be in the marriage business. Period. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514335986bb3f7d90400000c Kristopher Hovland Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:52:08 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514335986bb3f7d90400000c so much for standing on principles. Perhaps every GOP member should ask themselves, "what If my son/daughter were gay." Of course that opens a hole new can of worms. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514333c3eab8ea8a5f000003 DMG Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:44:19 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514333c3eab8ea8a5f000003 I don't happen to believe that marriage is the government's business...ANY kind of marriage. I should be able to 'marry' a goat if I want. Now if I try to consummate the marriage then I think the government should get involved as I don't believe the goat can give informed consent. Please help me to force Joe and Henry to answer this question: <a href="http://read.bi/YElJcm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://read.bi/YElJcm</a> Post this link in all your comments until they do. I have posted numerous comments and even emailed Henry yet they continue to post articles pushing their agenda and refuse to answer simple questions. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51431db36bb3f78355000032 Anti Gay Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:10:11 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51431db36bb3f78355000032 Wow, now that your son is gay, its okay? http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51431ae4ecad04975e000032 Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:58:12 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51431ae4ecad04975e000032 I have no idea why I wrote Harkin, the story is about Portman and there is no confusing the two. Regardless of who it is, if they are in the US congress the point still remains. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143186beab8eaf31f000015 Peter G Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:47:39 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143186beab8eaf31f000015 It is impossible to support "gay marriage". One can support gay civil union or gay "make up any new word you like", but marraige is by definition a religious institution of a union between a man and a woman. Also, whether Harkin is for it or against it may be interesting news, but it's meaningless unless he becomes a State senator not a US senator: "Congress shalll make no law...prohibiting the free exercise". If he were a State senator he might be able to push a bill affecting civil unions. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514317656bb3f7b848000017 Obamao Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:43:17 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514317656bb3f7b848000017 Portman is an unprincipled weasel. He finds out that his son likes the cock, so he changes his position. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514316736bb3f7ba48000026 cw7 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:39:15 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/514316736bb3f7ba48000026 Good for Portman for coming around on equality. Amazing how it seems like a smart idea when it affects you and not someone else. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143166e6bb3f7b346000025 dyel Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:39:10 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143166e6bb3f7b346000025 Totally shallow how does he even have the audacity to make those comments?And he probably thinks people will admire him for it. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143121decad04c851000001 ippy01 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:20:45 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5143121decad04c851000001 Exactly, Ben Doverf! The government should be involved in the contract enforcement part of civil unions. "Marriage" is a personal, religious matter. http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430ecd6bb3f7b43b00000d adegiulio Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:06:37 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430ecd6bb3f7b43b00000d Wow, you come up with that rebuttal all by yourself? "I know you are but what am I?" /shovethemicupyourass http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430da5ecad04924200001e Slick Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:01:41 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430da5ecad04924200001e What, you mean like Obama? /dropsthemic http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430d676bb3f72137000063 ben doverf Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:00:39 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430d676bb3f72137000063 how about this position? NEITHER party, NOR the GOVERNMENT should have a "position" on same sex marriage OR opposite sex marriage. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS. Im married to a woman, but I dont need government 'tax breaks' or any other "breaks' because Im married. Its because I do care about the same sex marriages and Id rather be 'snubbed' then the government try and figure out how to "include" another "group" in "my" break. The government in ALL aspects is about "Groups" and "winners". That's why its so damn huge. Create a "group" you can get a government program. Marriage is just another example. Leave marriage up to individuals and organizations that will marry them (churches, cults, ministers whatever) and all these stupid stories and problems go away http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430d4deab8ead809000001 doodle Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:00:13 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430d4deab8ead809000001 I feel sorry for son- being PUSHED to be GAY so your dad gets elected- he liked sports--NOW HE SHOPS--3 yrs surprise girl co-shopper friend has baby http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430ac769beddd33400000e adegiulio Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:49:27 -0400 http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51430ac769beddd33400000e More of the same from the Republicans. Homosexuality is wrong until someone in your family is gay..then it's awesome. So, today's lesson: Oppose something unless it benefits you and your family.