Portman's Epiphany X 2

Lucky readers, today you get a two-fer: 

 

Both Buster and Dave Girves offer similar takes and ask similar questions about Portman's shift on gay marriage.  I was ready to post my comments when I got an email from Dave with one of his blog posts on the same topic.  So you get both, Buster first, then Dave.  (You can find more of Dave's stuff in "Buster's Links")   

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Even though his new position is a carefully crafted arms-length embrace, Sen. Rob Portman is getting praise for publicly renouncing his anti-gay views.  He deserves the kudos, because he did the right thing.  (Of course, he could still do more.)

But here's a good and fair question to ask:  Would Portman have changed his tune if he didn't have a gay son?  Obviously, the answer is no.

 

Left to themselves, Republicans/conservatives seem incapable of developing empathy.  Just can't get there on their own.  They have an epiphany only when some inconvenient personal truth pops up and smacks them right in the face:  "Today I 'discovered' my son is gay.  Rocked my world, dude!  Had to change my thinking."  But unless and until something personal like that occurs, there's very little thinking at all about other people, about fellow human beings.

 

Since that's the way they roll, I believe we could create a batch of more caring, empathetic Republicans if we could somehow arrange for them to wake up tomorrow and suddenly "discover" that one of their children is, say, poor.  Or hungry.  Or homeless.  Or on Medicaid.

 

I guess that's not very likely to happen to the offspring of the average Republican senator.  But it would be a real eye-opener if it did.  Right, Robbie?

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

Letters to the Editor

Columbus Dispatch,

I applaud Senator Rob Portman for taking the time to rethink his position and now support gay marriage.

I’m disappointed that he waited until he found out that one of his own children is gay to develop enough empathy to seriously consider his position on the issue.

Yet, as I understand it, his new position is “the government shouldn’t deny gay couples the opportunity to get married” . . . the federal government, that is. He wants his son to be able “to lead a happy meaningful life with the person he loves and to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister,” but only if his son is living in one of the nine states that sanction same sex marriage. Perhaps he should think some more.

I wish the Senator could summon that empathy and imagine how he would feel if his son had been brutally murdered at the age of six, at school, by a gunman holding an assault rifle.

Would he still be against banning assault weapons?

Do our elected officials have to be affected personally before they give serious consideration to the things that effect ordinary citizens every day?

Dave Girves