Rob Portman becomes only GOP Senator to endorse gay marriage.

[anvi]

I think it's just one of the quirks of human nature that we often are not able to identify with something until we confront it personally.  That's not always the case, but often it is.  Changing one's position on something as a response to one's own child's circumstances is an entirely good reason to change it.  Good for Portman.   

[anvi]

Let's not all think that having a gay child means that a Republican (or Democratic) legislator will automatically endorse same-sex marriage. I have heard countless times from legislators in state legislatures during debates talk about how they acknowledge and/or accept their child's sexuality, but cannot approve of same-sex marriage. And it does suck, since my parents are the same way.

Of course, sadly, this is quite true.  And I'm sorry to hear about the attitude of your parents.  But in those instances where children can change the parents' minds on gay marriage, that's a good thing. 

[anvi]

To those who think I'm on the wrong side you aren't looking at nature. I don't say what I say against gay marriage with any animus towards the GLBT community. I am in reality saddened by this society choosing to reject absolute truth.

Are you really on the side of nature?  There are a very large number of animal species whose members exhibit frequent homosexual behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

If God is the God of nature, didn't he make things so?

But I suppose what you mean is that you are on the side of what God says in the Biblical texts.  But even there, I'm curious, and I say I'm curious because it's a genuine question: What about what Paul says in 1 Cor 5:9-13 about admonishing sexual "immorality" (there it's a case of hetero adultery) inside the church, but having no authority to judge people outside of the church?  Wouldn't a "biblical" approach then allow for a society to make their own laws and non-Christians decide about their own morality, and trust God to be their judge?  From where in the New Testament does this idea derive that Christian practices have to be adopted by the state before the second coming?

[anvi]

Krugman makes the same point http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/other-peoples-children/

Krugman writes a self-righteous piece?  What a surprise.  By his apparent standards, the only people worth praise are people who have always been right and never changed their minds.  And I have yet to hear why changing one's mind about a moral matter and public policy because of compassion for one's child is "the wrong reason" to do so, or hypocritical.  Compassion isn't an abstract principle, it arises out of experience.  I'm too much of a consequentialist for all this.  If someone decides to do the right thing and does it, then they get my admiration, period.

[anvi]

That's not actually what he says however. He's merely saying that compassion is a lot more meritorious when it goes to people that one can't directly relate to.

Krugman portrays Portman in this short piece as someone who only judges as "good" whatever is to his own family's "benefit."  So, even with this change of heart, Portman is not praiseworthy because his benevolence doesn't extend to people whose self-interests don't overlap with his own.  But is that the only plausible way to view the matter?  It strikes me as a very baseline ad hominem characterization that is adopted sheerly for the purpose of making a political rim shot.  Isn't it possible that Portman's developing appreciation of what his son was confronting and his desire for his son's happiness changed Portman's conception of what the good is in this case?  It enabled Portman to then deduce what was in the best interests of gay citizens that he doesn't know, since he now thinks that all gay citizens should gain access to the right to marry, not only his own kid. It's just a fact of human moral psychology, and not a sign of irredeemable wretchedness, that people's experience of what is moral often starts with what is close at hand rather than resulting from principled and detached abstraction.   Krugman, in attributing the worst of intentions to political opponents and even finding ways to continually denounce those who have come around to his side on an issue, is doing little more than celebrating his own sanctimony.  Why can't he just be thankful that people can change their minds and are coming around the to right decisions and drop the sham puritanism about how they got there?

[anvi]

You still get it wrong. This (the bolded part) is exactly what Krugman is saying. He just adds that it would be nice if the generally heartless Republicans managed to develop the same empathy for people to which they have no direct connection. And please don't say it's rare or difficult. Any decent person can do that.

I don't think it's rare at all.  And I do wish politicians would develop more empathy for others with whom they have no connection.  But, though I really don't want to belabor the point, Krugman wrote of Portman: "apparently we’re supposed to praise him for his new enlightenment. But while enlightenment is good, wouldn’t it have been a lot more praiseworthy if he had shown some flexibility on the issue before he knew that his own family would benefit?" and "Someone should ask Portman why he didn’t take a stand for, you know, other people’s children."  That strikes me as a rather uncharitable characterization in this case. When someone does something good, all we want to do is beat them up for not being perfect?  Krugman, then, is our model of perfection?   But to each person, their own reading.

[anvi]

The bottom line is that people entrusted with making public policy should do so considering how it effects all Americans, not just their children. And while it's nice that Portman now supports the correct moral position on this one issue, it's hardly brave or heroic; if anything it's cowardly.

But don't you think that a lot of elected officials who disagree with one another strongly about policy issues do believe that they have the larger public good in mind?.  People who believe that gay marriage will erode society, or something comparably wrong, probably do so because they really think allowing it would do the country more harm than good.  Obviously, it would be hard for me to disagree more strongly than I do with Portman's previous position and those who still want to deny gay people right to marry.  But, if I call someone who changes their mind, in the correct way, a coward for doing so just because his child's experience was the cause of his change, I think that would imply that I also believe that people can't hold opposing convictions and yet that both might, in their respective views, may have the larger public interest in mind.  In that case, every disagreement will make people view one another as little more than moral slugs, and it's fairly hard for a society of people to do much together that way.