What a difference the all-important (D) makes.

Remember all the way back in 2012 when President Obama earned his gay-lo by “evolving” on gay marriage? The media and progressives (sorry, redundant!) swooned over our “first gay president.”

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.

  • Red Fred

    You can’t please a liberal thinker, even if you agree with them. We need to stop trying to appease the left. (I use that terminology “liberal-thinker” loosely.)

    • Angie

      They are dishonest hypocrites and their base actually does not have the ability to *think.* They don’t actually want a discussion on issues — they want to demonize anyone who isn’t “good” (in their opinion) and STOP all discussion. Don’t play their game.

    • http://twitter.com/Dan1231 Walter Sobchak

      Exactly. The idea that we lose because of gay marriage is BS. Andrew Breitbart and Dick Cheney both supported gay marriage and Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to same-sex partners of state employees and the left still hates them all with a white-hot passion. They don’t hate us because because of any one issue, they hate us because we’re not Marxists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

    Congratulating him doesn’t make sense, bashing him doesn’t make sense either. To me that’s a natural thing, intimate knowledge of an issue would be a catalyst for a change of opinion.

    It’s not like Portman did it for votes, it might actually hurt him in that respect. What was the catalyst for Obama?? His stance – back and forth, back and forth aka vote pandering.

    • Hiraghm

      How is his knowledge of the issue intimate? He didn’t come out of the closet; he didn’t spend a weekend in Aspen with Elton John.
      Turns out his son is afflicted, so he changed his position rather than condemn his son. Hypocrite.

      • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

        why ask such an inane question, when a two second search would reveal the definition?

        in·ti·mate 1 (nt-mt)
        1. Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity.

    • E Quilibrate


  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.jefferies.96 Richard Jefferies

    The whole problem with Gay marriage and trying to shoe-horn it into conservative thought is that the whole point of gays wanting to marry is to get government bestowed benefits, which runs contrary to conservative thought. If you are truly conservative get the state out of marriage altogether. That means that the state can’t attack a church for refusing to marry a gay couple any more than they can stop a church from choosing to marry said couple.

    What we need is a military style “page 2” that designates a beneficiary. That beneficiary has all the rights normally afforded a spouse, hospital visits, inheritance, what have you. We should all want the government out of our personal lives as much as possible. This runs contrary to many homosexual group’s agendas to punish anyone that doesn’t kowtow to their way of thinking by using the police power of the state. That is not to say all of them, but many of them.

    • almarquardt

      Couldn’t have said it better. I also love the idea of “page 2.” Unfortunately, the Gay/Lesbian community won’t be content with that. Too many want not only acceptance for their lifestyle, but celebration — and all government mandated.

      • nc

        Plus a punishment or at least a “shaming” of the “bigots” that don’t view their lifestyle as perfectly normal.

        • almarquardt

          So much for the party of “we can’t legislate morality.” Notice how they don’t say that anymore?

          • E Quilibrate

            “They” are not saying anything different now than
            before. Your wishing it does not make it so.

          • almarquardt

            Wishing? What wishing? I’m not “wishing” anything.

      • Judy B

        As stated back in the 80’s when the closet door was cracked, it is leading to an assortment of deviant behavior, Yale U & bestiality ring any bells?

    • CatHerder

      There you go. Marriage should be between a couple and their church. If you are not a member of a church, or not a member of a church that supports gay marriage, then civil union should satisfy all the requirements for insurance etc. IMO all marriages should be considered civil unions, with no one but the couple and their church noting that they comply with the requirements for marriage within that church.

      • Hiraghm

        No. No “civil union”. No suggestion whatsoever that abnormalcy is merely alternative normalcy.

        You want a spouse, find a willing member of the opposite sex and get married.

        Screw whoever or whatever one wants, but no pretending one’s attractions are what they are supposed to be.

        • E Quilibrate

          Just love when rationalization produces terms such
          as “alternative normalcy”. That might apply to sky
          color, which way North really is, etc. mind boggling.

      • stellatruman

        I disagree with that…I do not go to church , but that doesn’t define my marriage or make it less valid. My husband and I took a vow for marriage , not civil union. Live and let live

        • CatHerder

          So did my wife and I, four decades ago. Nevertheless, she and I had to present ourselves before the county clerk with blood tests in hand to get our state-issued license. The state didn’t give a flip who executed them after that, it could be the local JP or the Pope.

          I admit, I’m not crazy about gay people. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that they should be persecuted for something they can no more help than I can being heterosexual. Doesn’t everybody deserve a fair shake?

          • stellatruman

            Fair enough but I have gay friends who I like a hell of a lot more than most people I know…even attended a wedding recently. I really don’t care who loves who, I are that about the financial decline of this country at the hands of liberals. I am not in a position to pass judgement on them any more than they are on me. The way I see it, their being married doesn’t make me less married and they are not in any way a threat to me or my family…can’t say that about liberal democrats who want to take away my rights and tax us into further submission

    • RightThinking1

      The whole problem with homosexual ‘marriage’ is that it is a fraud. Marriage evolved as a psychological and physical commitment between a man and a woman. That commitment far transcends a simple legal consensus. It involves blood ties between different families and children, and an acknowledgement that men and women are different both physically and psychologically.

      If two men or two women wish to establish some variety of legal contract with one another, that is fine by me, but it will never be marriage.

      However much homosexuals desire to emulate marriage in a relationship, it will never be. Cloaking oneself with a flawed emulation is not the same as the real thing, and never will be. It is definitively degenerate.

      I believe that the constant focus on ‘marriage’ is nothing more than a desire to gain a stamp of moral approval for homosexual relationships. It is a way to say that it is ‘OK’. I reiterate, it isn’t ‘OK’ because it is a fraud. The only way it will come about is via legal hocus-pocus rather than by popular will or recognition.

      Let the label-flinging begin….

    • GaryTheBrave

      I just posted something similar on my FB page. Marriage in this country has been reduced to earning a series of “permissions” from the government from the marriage license on.

      I’m concerned with what the true goal of the gay agenda. I know gay marriage isn’t it, it’s just a stepping stone.

      • Hiraghm

        The true agenda is the dissolution of marriage altogether, and the destruction of monogamous heterosexual relationships, by confusing the issue in every way possible.

        • SpinMeNot

          The biggest threat to an oppressive government is a close knit family unit bonded by common belief, common history, and biological ties. Blood is thicker than water.

    • Hiraghm

      No, we don’t. A wife and husband is the same person, at least according to Christianity, and a daresay Judaism and Islam. “one flesh”, as it were.

      I’ve yet to see anyone run into trouble with visiting an ill friend in the hospital, and a will can already specify who is to inherit what from the deceased.

      There is no issue except to people who will not accept that they have a mental/emotional illness, and those misguides people who empower them.

      Someone with multiple personality disorder should be allowed to marry him-or-herself. A man or woman should be allowed to marry a horse… or a child… I’ve always found out that it’s not a matter of getting rid of that nasty old unfair line between healthy and homosexual, but about redrawing the line just the other side of homosexual.
      And once it’s pushed there, in coming decades it’ll be pushed farther and farther until marriage truly becomes meaningless. By then I doubt it will matter, because the result will be a total destruction of civilization.

      • GaryTheBrave

        The word “marry” means to blend together two or more dissimilar materials to create a third distinct material. The DNA of the husband blends with the DNA of the wife to create a new DNA that results in a child.

        A person cannot technically marry an animal because it would not result in a new DNA string, just as homosexuals cannot technically marry because they are not dissimilar thereby unable to create a new DNA string.

  • http://twitter.com/jimni27 Jimni27

    So much more admirable to come out in support of gay marriage when you have an election coming up and you’re pandering for votes

  • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

    Liberals of all persuasions can never find happiness or contentment because they are mentally ill. Their only attempt at ending their self-motivated misery is to make other people miserable.

  • Maxx

    IF I had a son, I wouldn’t be disappointed if he was gay.

    I’d be disappointed if he was a Democrat.

    • Matthew Koch

      Ditto that!

      I might feel differently if he was a Red Sox fan though.

    • $7610427

      I have a daughter that’s gay…don’t care. It pis ses me off that she supported O and listens to NPR! She’s only 20 so there’s hope for her becoming a conservative yet…fingers crossed…

      • stellatruman

        she will wake up and see the wrong of her ways…and by that I mean voting for democrats :)

    • Hiraghm

      If I had a son, I wouldn’t be disappointed if he claimed to be homosexual. I’d simply get him help. If he refused, I wouldn’t have a son.

      Same as if he were a progressive.

      • $7610427

        Sorry…no freakin way would I disown one of my children. Maybe, that’s just me…

      • Sons Thunder

        No wonder so many people choose to be gay. What child doesn’t yearn to be abandoned and treated as disposable by their father?

      • Larry G.

        i cant believe people thumbed up this comment, seriously? you’d disown your son, that says so much about you as a father and a person.

      • v1cious

        Father of the year material right here, folks.

    • stellatruman

      Amen to that !

    • E Quilibrate

      Man that says it all.

  • Scott Carroll

    Portman deserves every bit of this “praise”. I’ve never agreed with leftists more in my life. If you change your principles because adherence to them personally affects you then guess what? You never had principles in the first place.

    During the Revolutionary War Benjamin Franklin’s son was a Tory. Imagine if Franklin had taken Portman’s attitude, “Wow, I really believed in the American cause of freedom and no taxation without representation but now that I found out my son is a Royalist? Long live King George III!!!”

    Hey Senator, if you found out your daughter had an abortion would you suddenly see the light and become pro-choice? What if one of your children got a job writing for Mother Jones, would you realize the economic potency of totalitarianism? Do you hold any views that are inviolable or are they all subject to the vagaries of personal experience? Just asking on behalf of your constituents.

    • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

      I hear you but at the same time, I don’t think it’s as divisive an issue as any of the other issues you listed.

      Edit: By your DV, I am to assume you think gay marriage is as egregious as killing babies, being a traitor to your country, and unlimited government power? That’s absurd…

      • Scott Carroll

        No, I’m actually a libertarian on all social issues. I think gays should be allowed to marry as well as brothers and sisters and multiple partners. I mean if the criterion is love and love alone, there should be no standards placed on marriage at all.

        No, what I find distasteful is holding a position and then reversing yourself when said issue affects you personally. By the way at no point in my original post did I compare gay marriage with abortion or unlimited government power. I don’t know where you extrapolated that from the argument I was making. I brought up those issues because I assume Portman feels strongly about them, as strongly as he used to feel about same sex marriage. My point was we cannot trust this man’s core beliefs if they are that pliable.

        • http://wolfmoon1776.wordpress.com/ Wolf Moon

          I doubt he changed just because of a gay family member. That is usually what makes people start thinking about the issue, but that is not how they come to their final decision. I can tell you – this is an issue that conservatives have been thinking about very hard for years, but it’s only recently that people are beginning to admit the stunning constitutional calculus that always results – we have to support it or we weaken the Constitution irreparably.

          Supporting gay marriage is the only constitutionally consistent position that a conservative can take. If you want to embrace the Constitution fully on free speech, gun ownership, drones, search and seizure, and all that stuff, then preventing churches which believe in gay marriage from practicing their belief, while hypocritically supporting the speech rights of the Catholic church, is intolerable. Churches must be free to perform gay marriage, or to say it’s a sin, if that’s what they believe. First Amendment rules, both ways.

          I admire Portman for coming to his senses on this issue.

          Portman is still rated “A” by the NRA, and he still has my vote. In fact, I like him even better now.

    • Hiraghm

      IIRC from “1776”, Franklin asked, upon hearing of his son’s incarceration, “Why did they arrest the little bastard?” :)

  • http://twitter.com/murgatr0id GTJessop

    I get it, I think. If Joe Biden was Obama’s son and not his VP, and he forced Obama’s evolution on the issue, Libs would be a whole lot more pissed, right? (Would that make Joe Biden look like Trayvon Martin? Another question for another time…)

  • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.white.16 Joseph A White

    Like all left wing liberal moon bats…..ignore them. You’ll NEVER make them happy nor will they ever stop whining and being “victims” of “bigotry”, “racism” or the like. I view liberals with the same contempt as I do Muslims. They are ALL of them enemies of America and American Traditional values.

    • v1cious

      Tradishinuhl Murican Valyuuz, GIT-R-DONE!

  • TocksNedlog

    So, Obama gets a pass because he didn’t ‘wait until it personally affected him’ before he “evolved”?
    Oh, and thanks, libs, for ONCE AGAIN demonstrating that you will criticize us regardless of how hypocritical or disingenuous it makes YOU appear.

    • RightThinking1

      A fair point. Perhaps Obama was trying to get out in front of future developments in case,… say…, one of his daughters goes ‘gay’, or wants an abortion. He has politically covered himself. Which is pretty much what he is about.

    • Kate

      Technically, it DID personally affect Obama…his approval ratings in the polls, that is. It was the most calculated policy shift in modern politics.

      I’m glad Sen. Portman’s son is proud of him- I’m sure that’s the only opinion he cares about anyway.

    • grais

      We don’t really know, though, what caused his evolution. It may well have been because it personally affected him and he just hasn’t said so. And wouldn’t it be funny to find out that he’s not unlike Portman?

  • Michael Adams

    For the government to tell me I have to allow or uphold gay marriage goes against my beliefs and I believe is a violation of separation of church and state. This goes against the Constitution but that doesn’t stop Obama he doesn’t uphold the Constitution anyway and that’s reason enough to Impeach him.

  • RightThinking1

    By way of example, this is why society does not allow family members of crime-victims to sit on juries. Their judgement is no longer neutral. Manifestly, Portman’s judgement in the matter is no longer neutral.

  • Neil Leininger

    and people wonder why Republicans can’t compromise with these people.

  • Clayton Grant

    There is a giant gay storm gathering. Before long, the winds of change will be blowing … each other.

    • E Quilibrate


  • $7610427

    This is quite funny! Liberals get pis sed off when conservatives don’t fit their stereotypical mold. I face this all the time because I lean Libertarian. Being an artist, not caring whether people or gay or not, believing certain drugs should be legal, having family and friends of all races, nationalities and persuasions, educated, and female=good. Liberals learning that I’m a card carrying and voting conservative=head spinning off of shoulders. One actually told me once “you’re not supposed to be a conservative”. Wow.

    • http://wolfmoon1776.wordpress.com/ Wolf Moon

      LOL. I feel for you, bud. I get the same thing.

      The left has become so lock-step and so fed on false images, they can’t even believe that people on the right are not only “significantly not as described” – they’re even different from each other!

      • $7610427

        Ummm…that would be “gal”…but, that’s okay…I get your point. LOL no, we don’t all fit into the same box. I think that greatly disappoints them…

  • Hiraghm

    Portman is a weak-kneed characterless charlatan… or a politician. Once it was his ox being gored, he changed his mind. Right and wrong, rational and insane, everything is relative to such hypocrites.

  • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

    Only liberals would curse out a guy for agreeing with them. Party of tolerance!

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    Just more proof that RINOs are wrong when they say the GOP should become more moderate, liberals have an irrational hatred of us and that isn’t going to change no matter how far to the left the GOP moves.

  • Jason

    More and more the left proves how immoral they are. I am surprised to see more republicans doing the same thing.

    Thank God I’m a conservative.

  • Bumr50

    I’m a libertarian leaning Republican that has no problem at all with homosexuality.

    However, the lockstep gay Nazis tweeting their anger about a dreaded “Republican” changing their mind on an issue go a long way to perpetuate the stereotype on the right that all homosexuals care about is their group identity and the “gay agenda.”

    They have no interest in true acceptance unless those accepting them share an ideology with them?

    Or else they “don’t count,” because they believe in individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, a strong defense, the US Constitution, God, or some combination of these?

    • http://wolfmoon1776.wordpress.com/ Wolf Moon

      Great point.

      Bottom line, the gay left doesn’t care about “rights” except as part of a package to get what they want, before they take away YOUR rights on something else, like freedom of speech. Win-win is not part of their vocabulary. And guess what? They voted for Obama! Like that’s a surprise.

      Doesn’t matter. Portman should just do the right thing because it’s the right thing. He should do it even if the people who he supports by doing it, hate him. I for one will wholeheartedly support him now. He’s gone constitutional on us.

  • http://wolfmoon1776.wordpress.com/ Wolf Moon

    “How ’bout that new tone? The modern Left, winning hearts and minds one “f*ck that guy” at a time.”

    Quoted for truth.

    I will gladly take one more principled conservative, who is clearly coming over to the new, risky, freedom-loving side of the Republican party, than 150 million left-wingers who comfortably support marital equality as part of their lefty fascist group-think, where people who don’t like gay marriage can shut up or go to prison.

  • JCRocks

    A-hole Dems feel threatened if one of their primary voting issues is co-opted by the GOP. They realize they only have social issues to prop them up since their economics are complete trash.

  • TheOriginalDonald

    They won’t be happy until Rob Portman goes full RINO. Dude should’ve just stuck to his guns

  • Dawn

    Twitchy has completely misunderstood why some people are angry. As a politician, you should care about everyone you represent, not just the kinds of people you also have in your family tree. He only changed his mind because now his anti-gay sentiments would make him look like a bad father.

  • Guest

    A politician’s values may change with the wind… but who molested his son?

  • Thevelvetkitten

    Damned if you do,damned if you don’t….

  • Thevelvetkitten

    Liberals demand tolerance for their moral compass but have no tolerance for others rights to have their own.

  • pajamakat

    Hillary now supports gay marriage. Will we see the same fake outrage from the libs on her “evolving”? Hmmmm

  • J.N. Ashby

    I don’t really care about this whole Senator guy and the gay marriage issue. I just wanted to say Matthew Yglesias is a douchebag. Also a Communist. Also I wish some kind of terminal illness on him.