no rob portman you're still a piece of shit, you're not suddenly cool for deciding gay marriage is ok when your son came out to you—
ＨＯＧ_ＣＲＡＮＫＥＲ６６６ (@aardvarkwizard) March 15, 2013
What a difference the all-important (D) makes.
On Friday, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman published an op-ed revealing that he changed his stance on same-sex marriage after his son came out.
Here’s an excerpt:
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.
One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.
But remember, Portman is a Republican so his support of gay marriage is just more proof of conservative hypocrisy and bigotry. Really.
Progressives didn’t get that memo.
No fawning praise from Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias:
Matthew Yglesias beats me to a point I was planning to make. Sen. Rob Portman has made headlines by declaring his support for gay marriage after learning that his own son is gay, and 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?
At The Atlantic, the initial reaction was “anger.”
Cue the nastiness from Twitter progs:
How ’bout that new tone? The modern Left, winning hearts and minds one “f*ck that guy” at a time.