Rob Portman becomes only GOP Senator to endorse gay marriage.

[memphis]

It just a shame he couldn't show the same basic level of courtesy to other Americans. This is fundamentally about taking care of his own. Which isn't at all a bad thing. But it's not particularly heroic either.

[King]

So many in the Bush Administration have come out for this that their use of the evangelical vote as a wedge makes 2004 a far bigger steal of an election than 2000.  Nobody believed the rhetoric.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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.

[Mr. Morden]

Josh Barro on why Portman's son will make it harder for gay marriage opponents to go after him on this, and put them in an uncomfortable position:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/how-rob-portman-will-change-the-gay-marriage-debate.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Another difference between Portman and Obama is that Obama only ever "opposed" gay marriage, he never opposed it. I mean even if that was his official stance it's not like he was fooling anyone. Yes, it was a pathetic ploy. But come on, who actually believes Obama ever sincerely opposed gay marriage at any point in his political career? Even your average voter doesn't.

[Ogre Mage]

The ground has shifted dramatically on this issue.  According to Wikipedia, 41 senators (38 Democrats, 2 independents and now 1 Republican) support same-sex marriage.  Given that these folks represent whole states, that is no small achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#U.S._Senators

It's easy to see a majority of the Senate supporting marriage equality sometime in the intermediate future -- a goal which once seemed like a galaxy far, far away.  Mr. Portman deserves credit.  No incumbent GOP senator or governor has been willing to take this position until now.

[MaxQue]

I've been very surprised at the speed of the progress of marriage equality in the US. It reminds me of Canada, where it was very quick, too.

Better than Europe which is painfully lagging on gay rights in the last decade.

[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?

[Lurker]

Another difference between Portman and Obama is that Obama only ever "opposed" gay marriage, he never opposed it. I mean even if that was his official stance it's not like he was fooling anyone. Yes, it was a pathetic ploy. But come on, who actually believes Obama ever sincerely opposed gay marriage at any point in his political career? Even your average voter doesn't.

I don't see how that argument works in Obamas favour, however. Is it worse to actually change your mind about gay marriage, like Portman (though for dubious and self-serving reasons) than to pretend that you oppose gay marriage just for political gain, as you say Obama did?

[Torie]

Another thought is this. Portman is one of the most respected men in the Senate, with a very distinguished career, and one admired for his sense of fairness, and calm and cerebral approach to issues. His support for gay marriage, will give cover to many other Pub politicians coming out of the closet on this issue. It makes support for gay marriage a much more mainstream position on the Pub side of the political divide - it will make it much more difficult to characterize such support as a "fringe" position.

And I suspect many more Pub politicians will come out of the closet - and soon, just like the Chairman of the Illinois Pub party, Mr. Brady.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Another difference between Portman and Obama is that Obama only ever "opposed" gay marriage, he never opposed it. I mean even if that was his official stance it's not like he was fooling anyone. Yes, it was a pathetic ploy. But come on, who actually believes Obama ever sincerely opposed gay marriage at any point in his political career? Even your average voter doesn't.

I don't see how that argument works in Obamas favour, however. Is it worse to actually change your mind about gay marriage, like Portman (though for dubious and self-serving reasons) than to pretend that you oppose gay marriage just for political gain, as you say Obama did?

Considering Portman actually sponsored a bill banning gay marriage on a federal level, I'd say his flip-flop is worse. Obama would deserve more flak if ANY serious presidential contender before him had ever espoused support for the LGBT movement, but it was considered an unelectable position to hold even five years ago.

[afleitch]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

[7,052,770]

Who cares what his reason is?  This a huge step in the right direction for America.  Let's just celebrate it and congratulate him rather than demean the only Republican senator who's now a non-bigot on this issue.

[Torie]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Well in this unscientific sample of 4 people, we have two evangelical ministers, one who thinks that sodomy is evil, and another who thinks gays should never have come out of the closet. Was the taker of the videos cherry picking in order to embarrass?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[7,052,770]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Well in this unscientific sample of 4 people, we have two evangelical ministers, one who thinks that sodomy is evil, and another who thinks gays should never have come out of the closet. Was the taker of the videos cherry picking in order to embarrass?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you really think these reactions aren't typical?  Do you think even 10% of the people who attend CPAC support gay marriage?

[memphis]

Not just CPAC. Those sort of reactions are typical amongst the broad GOP electorate. These people have a serious disconnect with reality, and this is far from the only issue.

[Torie]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Well in this unscientific sample of 4 people, we have two evangelical ministers, one who thinks that sodomy is evil, and another who thinks gays should never have come out of the closet. Was the taker of the videos cherry picking in order to embarrass?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you really think these reactions aren't typical?  Do you think even 10% of the people who attend CPAC support gay marriage?

I have no idea as to either of your queries. Maybe Inks or Phil have an opinion on that. I am suspicious however, when 2 of the 4 interviewees just happen to be hard wired evangelical ministers.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Well in this unscientific sample of 4 people, we have two evangelical ministers, one who thinks that sodomy is evil, and another who thinks gays should never have come out of the closet. Was the taker of the videos cherry picking in order to embarrass?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you really think these reactions aren't typical?  Do you think even 10% of the people who attend CPAC support gay marriage?

I have no idea as to either of your queries. Maybe Inks or Phil have an opinion on that. I am suspicious however, when 2 of the 4 interviewees just happen to be hard wired evangelical ministers.

Most of the people who take the time to go to CPAC probably feel very strongly about the issue. The moderates aren't there, and it's not like that is some unbelievable sample.

[Mr. Morden]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Well in this unscientific sample of 4 people, we have two evangelical ministers, one who thinks that sodomy is evil, and another who thinks gays should never have come out of the closet. Was the taker of the videos cherry picking in order to embarrass?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Do you really think these reactions aren't typical?  Do you think even 10% of the people who attend CPAC support gay marriage?

Never been to CPAC, but I'd guess that there's a significant fraction of people there who are apathetic on gay marriage.  I mean, it is more movement conservatives than "Religious Right" types, and a decent share of those there are young people.

Incidentally, Politico has an interesting story on the "GOP elites vs. the base" on gay marriage:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/gop-elite-embraces-portmans-gay-marriage-switch-88936.html?hp=t3_3

[Ogre Mage]

Based on the public polling I have seen on this issue, approximately 25% of Republicans support same-sex marriage, about 25% are moderately opposed and 50% are strongly opposed.  So a representative group of four Republicans would include one marriage equality supporter and three opposed, with two of the opponents breathing fire and brimstone about how horrible it is that society is condoning homosexuality.  Their views have barely budged over time, whereas among Democrats and independents support for gay rights has gone up considerably.  Even if the party "elite" see the need for a change, I don't see the rank and file just embracing this new outlook.  And the GOP elite have only themselves to blame, for they have been fanning the flames of homophobia for many years to get votes.  Mr. Portman's conversion is moving and good to see, but let's not kid ourselves that this is heralding some new dawn of LGBT tolerance in the Republican Party at large.

[Sbane]

Based on the public polling I have seen on this issue, approximately 25% of Republicans support same-sex marriage, about 25% are moderately opposed and 50% are strongly opposed.  So a representative group of four Republicans would include one marriage equality supporter and three opposed, with two of the opponents breathing fire and brimstone about how horrible it is that society is condoning homosexuality.  Their views have barely budged over time, whereas among Democrats and independents support for gay rights have gone up considerably.  Even if the party "elite" see the need for a change, I don't see the rank and file just embracing this new outlook.  And the GOP elite have only themselves to blame, for they have been fanning the flames of homophobia for many years to get votes.  Mr. Portman's conversion is moving and good to see, but let's not kid ourselves that this is heralding some new dawn of LGBT tolerance in the Republican Party at large.

The thing is that the 25% of Republicans who favor gay marriage probably won't attend CPAC. Still, I would think 15% or so of the attendants support gay marriage.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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?

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.

[Torie]

Based on the public polling I have seen on this issue, approximately 25% of Republicans support same-sex marriage, about 25% are moderately opposed and 50% are strongly opposed.  So a representative group of four Republicans would include one marriage equality supporter and three opposed, with two of the opponents breathing fire and brimstone about how horrible it is that society is condoning homosexuality.  Their views have barely budged over time, whereas among Democrats and independents support for gay rights have gone up considerably.  Even if the party "elite" see the need for a change, I don't see the rank and file just embracing this new outlook.  And the GOP elite have only themselves to blame, for they have been fanning the flames of homophobia for many years to get votes.  Mr. Portman's conversion is moving and good to see, but let's not kid ourselves that this is heralding some new dawn of LGBT tolerance in the Republican Party at large.

The thing is that the 25% of Republicans who favor gay marriage probably won't attend CPAC. Still, I would think 15% or so of the attendants support gay marriage.

One little detail. The elites have the $$$$$. So if the elites shut their wallets, maybe the Pub politicians will have to think a bit more about the issue.

[Sbane]

Based on the public polling I have seen on this issue, approximately 25% of Republicans support same-sex marriage, about 25% are moderately opposed and 50% are strongly opposed.  So a representative group of four Republicans would include one marriage equality supporter and three opposed, with two of the opponents breathing fire and brimstone about how horrible it is that society is condoning homosexuality.  Their views have barely budged over time, whereas among Democrats and independents support for gay rights have gone up considerably.  Even if the party "elite" see the need for a change, I don't see the rank and file just embracing this new outlook.  And the GOP elite have only themselves to blame, for they have been fanning the flames of homophobia for many years to get votes.  Mr. Portman's conversion is moving and good to see, but let's not kid ourselves that this is heralding some new dawn of LGBT tolerance in the Republican Party at large.

The thing is that the 25% of Republicans who favor gay marriage probably won't attend CPAC. Still, I would think 15% or so of the attendants support gay marriage.

One little detail. The elites have the $$$$$. So if the elites shut their wallets, maybe the Pub politicians will have to think a bit more about the issue.

Meh, probably plenty of richers in Texas and other places who oppose gay marriage. And of course many won't really care as long as the party keeps supporting their economic interests. And if they realize it gains the Republicans votes, they will be even more enthusiastic for it. Of course, in the next few years as being against gay marriage becomes a liability, and Republicans keep losing because of it, perhaps the elites will shut their pockets since their goal is political power and losing elections isn't part of that plan.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Some CPAC reactions;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NVw7xnIMY4&feature=player_embedded

Adult in the room?