Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio is reversing course on the controversial issue of gay marriage. Rather than sticking with the party line, he came forward this week to offer support for same-sex unions. Portman’s shocking decision was made following a personal, family revelation that he’s now making public.
According to the Associated Press, Portman’s evolution on the issue began in 2011 when his son, Will, told his parents that he is gay. Rather than continuing to double-down against same-sex unions, the senator now says that he sees the issue in a new light — through the lens of a parent who wants his three children to be happy and healthy in their relationships.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. pauses to talk on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013, after the weekly Republican policy luncheon. Credit: AP
In speaking about his “change-of-heart” with CNN, Portman was candid.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I’ve had for over 26 years,” he said. “That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay.”
Watch a portion of his interview, below:
This is a stark change from the past, when Portman, in 1996, voted in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. The controversial measure defined marriage as being strictly between a man and woman and it banned the federal government from recognizing gay marriage.
He noted that his “faith tradition” had colored his views against gay marriage, but that his son’s revelation changed his position on the matter. Will, he says, blessed his decision to come forward and helped him process his thoughts before releasing his new-found stance.
“I think he’s happy and, you know, proud that we’ve come to this point, but he let it be my decision just as you know, it’s going to be his decision as to the role he plays going forward in this whole issue,” Portman said of his son.
Portman had previously discussed the issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney, his pastor and others.
Read the full CNN report for more.
–
Other-Must Read Stories:
- Bombshell Secret Comes Out During Priest’s Trial for Alleged Sexual Assault
- So Who Exactly Is the New Pope Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina (Pope Francis)?
- What Simple Act Did Pope Francis Do Today That Has Everyone Buzzing?
- Why Did the Cardinals Select an Argentinian Pope? These Stunning Graphics May Provide the Answer
- Assistant Principal Accused of Having Sex With Student…in His Office During Prom Event
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (305)
avlmac
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:58amThe son is “happy” for now, but lost for eternity — and with his father’s approval. Truly sad.
Report this comment
edcoil
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:26amMy little brother “came out”. It did not change mine or my parents core values of opposing gay marriage. While we understand the life style more, why would what someone else does change your core beliefs or if you are like most politicians, they had none in the first place.
Report this comment
Grace1798
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:34amsad and Eternally damning.
Report this comment
00100111
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:38amThat’s between him and God. It is not the role of Federal Govt to have anything to do with marriage.
Report this comment
ltb
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:39amPeople like you irritate me almost as much as gay activists. You don’t know that he is lost for eternity. There are many people who have lived all sorts of debauched lifestyles, but still discovered and accepted the truth about Salvation through Christ. While his father’s support is well-meaning, it’s misguided and he’s not doing his son any favors by encouraging his behavior.
Report this comment
Bot
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:47amMarriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
George Washington understood the impact on our civilization’s future. He had homosexuals drummed out of service … http://cnsnews.com/news/article/george-washington-drummed-out-soldier-infamous-crime-attempted-sodomy …. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
…. and Jefferson wrote legislation to punish homosexual acts by castration. http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-64
Report this comment
G-WHIZ
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:01amSo….Y’a mean that not having a child of your own sperm+egg and not raising him/her for over 26yrs is gonna be a “real satisfying marriage” ??? Same-sex-couples will NEVER HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE!!
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:02am“If he doesn’t REPENT he will be” should be in front of your “lost for eternity” comment.
For all the anal retentive comments (pun intended) that cant follow your meaning.
And His father will share in his reward as well ..Look at what happened to “Lots wife” .
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:03amI do agree that government should have nothing to do with this, one way or the other.
It’s always bothered me however, that so many politicians, and regular individual citizens, gauge what they believe in only on how it affects them. They do not base their beliefs on bedrock principle, rather they go with the “I only believe in the rights/beliefs that impact me”. It’s nothing more than subjective situational ethics. Now if his son dies of AIDS he’ll go right back to being “against gay whatever” because it affected him negatively.
Situational ethics is the death of morality and virtue. This kind of thing demonstrates it. And I’m even talking about people who start “believing” as I do, but do so only because suddenly they are impacted in a way that forces that decision whereas last week they were against my positions. If you can’t base your morality and virtue on sound, thought out principles and philosophical contemplation then you’re little more than a rudderless ship drifting in the wind, whose course changes with the direction of the tides and the wind.
Report this comment
Chazael
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:21am“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:26
If one truly follows Jesus he not only can, but must follow Jesus despite of family or self. If you can’t deny yourself or your family… you aren’t following Jesus and its time to double check exactly what path you are on.
Report this comment
Stoic one
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:23amThe solution is civil unions for anyone. there would be no “Marriages” for the government.
Marriage is spiritual, belongs in the church; not gov’t.
Report this comment
Chazael
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:31am@00100111
“That’s between him and God. It is not the role of Federal Govt to have anything to do with marriage.”
But it should be as a government which does not “bring wrath on the one who practices evil” is immoral. Just as people through whom stumbling blocks come, like a government who upholds evil, are immoral (Matt 18:7).
If your position is to uphold immorality… that just means your position is immoral. Pointing at a manmade law won’t be an excuse as the question will arise “Why did you support an immoral law?”.
Report this comment
EnemiesWithinWillNOTPrevail
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:31amThat’s your hypocritical opinion. You are condemned for judging. There is only one God and he makes no mistakes! efu.
Report this comment
kadster01
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:37amIt’s called moral relativism, and it is the guiding philosophy of most people these days.
Report this comment
termyt
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:43amRight on, GoJ.
I’m not saying one cannot have an epiphany and a change of heart, but I am suspicious of them.
All of that and more said – gays can enter into any kind of union they want to. They can call it marriage if they want to. The only restriction is the State will not give it a marriage license.
If you believe it is right for homosexuals to wed, fine. Why do you need force society to agree? This question is asked over and over again but never answered. If government only licensed homosexual marriages do you think Christians would stop having their own wedding ceremonies? Of course not.
Report this comment
JohnofOregon
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:44amWhat’s new here. Most people already knew about this when he was the democrat party nominee for the republican candidate for president. His kid gave an interview for this out here in Portland.
This is such a fake news story is unbelievable.
Obama’s pick to run against him lied? Imagine that. The only reason this story is out is because the rino’s are pushing for gay ” marriage” in the republican platform vs civil unions. This would ensure the division of the party and placing democrats in total control for fifty years and end the 1rst amendment once and for all.
Report this comment
BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:48am“There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” Proverbs 14:12
You have got to love this quote…”He noted that his “faith tradition” had colored his views…..”
Apparently, Mr. Portman’s decision to drop his “faith tradition” was lacking one very important component……….WISDOM. But what really did you expect from a congressman who is running a country that has brought itself to the brink of ruin. We should all follow his lead….Don’t ya think?
Report this comment
Chazael
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:48am@EnemiesWithinWillNOTPrevail
“That’s your hypocritical opinion. You are condemned for judging. There is only one God and he makes no mistakes! efu.”
I am assuming Matt 7:1-5.
It is impossible to interpret the passage that way. Jesus was speaking to his disciples and a crowd (5:1). He tells them that they should not worry about the speck in their brother’s eye, while there is a log in their own (7:3).
If you try and say this is about not talking about the sin of others, then there is no possible way to point at a speck. Everyone was already declared to have a log.
Rather is the same teaching as the king who pardoned a huge sum (log) while his slave did not pardon a person who owed him little (speck) Matt 18:23-35
And the same teaching as found in the Lord’s prayer “forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors” (Matt 6:12).
Not to mention the sense of judging is wrong as Jesus isn’t going to come back and say what you did was evil… He is saying that now. Rather He will come and deliver judgment upon those who are practicing evil. You are confusing throwing stones with saying “sin no more” (John 8:11).
Or to mention that this passage would not be profitable for teaching… as you couldn’t use it without condemning yourself. If someone truly believed this passage to say ‘do not point fingers at people’ you would never hear them speak.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:54amGhostOfJefferson
I have been on all side of the issue when it came to smoking. I am now libertarian when it comes to smoking even though it hurts badly. I look back 40 or 50 years and think what would have happened without a cigarette? That might not have been good either. I would rather go to the education route.
I don’t think gay marriage (et al) and smoking are good analogies. Been seeing some good argument of at PJ media by commenters. I do not think that if the LGBT lobby gets its’ way you can do any education. I just have to look at Sweden to see where this is going. Sweden by the way is outlawing all smoking in 2025. I kid you not. And they jail pastors, but not imans. Imagine that!
Report this comment
Ditto Head
Mar. 15, 2013 at 11:13amOur comission as disciples is to WARN people of the possibility of eternal damnation. It is NOT to declare that they are doomed to it. That is Christ’s job. He will be the Judge. Homosexuality is not “the unforgivable sin”, and anyone who claims that any individual is “lost” or “damned” is acting WAAAAAAAYYY above their pay grade. You Pharisees ought to go back and re-read John chapter 8, specifically verses 10 and 11.
Report this comment
naughtycal
Mar. 15, 2013 at 11:54amWhy doesn’t this elitist just say the truth..The government has NO BUSINESS being involved in Marriage in the first. That’s why I favor congressman like Rand Paul who believes that limiting government grows liberty and freedom. No where in the Constitution is the federal government granted domain over the marriage of two consenting adults. So instead of coming out in favor or against gay marriage tell the truthy. IT’S NO BODIES BUSINESS AND NO AGENCIES BUSINESS EITHER.
Report this comment
1FreeVoice
Mar. 15, 2013 at 12:05pmSexual orientation is inborn… or are you going to tell me that one day you “decided” to be straight?
Science is finding epigenetic markers that are inherited. If God made them that way, how can it be against God’s will? What kind of relationships people have, loving and respectful, or controlling and abusive… are something for human choice and God’s judgement. Parents who abandon their children because God made them a bit different may also be a matter for God’s judgement.
Love thy neighbor as thyself was not trivial when Jesus said it. The Samaritans in the parable were considered abominations who God only allowed to live and breed so that He would have plenty of human firewood to keep hell burning. Have you forgotten that Jesus’s disciples urged him to call down fire from heaven on them? Do you remember what Jesus answered?
If you want to judge, use the fruits of the spirit as your guide. I think you need to look in the mirror and see where you stack up on that before you start casting any more stones… glass houses and all that, you know.
Report this comment
The_Jerk
Mar. 15, 2013 at 12:52pmOnce again, a self-serving Republican not standing on principle.
Report this comment
GoodStuff
Mar. 15, 2013 at 12:57pm@LTB
“There are many people who have lived all sorts of debauched lifestyles, but still discovered and accepted the truth about Salvation through Christ.”
Well, then do it NOW! A father who actually loves his son would tell him “TODAY is the day of salvation!” His son could die in a car accident today and be lost forever. Instead, this horrible father, Portman, accepts his son’s sin and is willing to let him go to Hell.
Rob Portman = horrible father. If he truly loved his son, he would be doing everything he could to tell him what the Bible says about sin and Hell. Trying to keep people out of Hell IS love.
Report this comment
Native54
Mar. 15, 2013 at 3:02pmPortman is politically dead to me.
If his stance on same-sex marriage was the right thing to do before his son came out, then it’s still the right stance to have after the coming out party. I have family members of both sexes who say they are homosexual, that I love, and that will not change. But I would no more endorse their sexual confusion, and the very harmful effects of engaging in such sexual behavior, as I would endorse ones promiscuity, or being a serial adulterer. I’ve done my homework on the ravages of homosexuality.. And how it will eventually infringe on others right of conscience. Look at what’s happening in Canada.
Report this comment
Native54
Mar. 15, 2013 at 3:07pmWell said BOT!! Great information. May I use it? … often? (grin)
Report this comment
RedHarley
Mar. 15, 2013 at 3:56pmAs one from Ohio, I guess all I can say is that I am glad that his son didn’t come out and say he liked abusing farm animals………….
How in tune with his family is this guy ?
RINO gotta go.
Report this comment
todd147
Mar. 15, 2013 at 4:13pmIf we gay condemns you to Hell, then why did Jesus ever come and die on a cross? Does that mean all alcoholics, anyone who watches porn, or people who sin in general go to Hell? I believe in a much more gracious Savior. He will never approve of this behavior, however I doubt He would throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 5:40pmAVLMAC
“The son is ..lost for eternity”
Not true. Nobody is “lost for eternity”. Until their final day arrives, they can be “found”.
PS: Not saying the dude is “lost” at all. I don’t know him. Just saying your argument needs some adjustments and qualifiers.
Report this comment
ltb
Mar. 15, 2013 at 6:46pmtodd147, Unlike some self-professing Christians, it’s clear you understand the Gospel. There is no sin so grave, except rejecting salvation through Christ, that the person committing that sin can’t be saved.
I usually find those who point their fingers the most at other people’s sin have some glaring sin of their own to which they are completely blind. A lot of times such people are obese, forgetting that gluttony is a sin, or they are gossips, which is a detestable sin. I’ve said this before, but I wish gay people would go back in the closet and I wish fellow Christians would get off their soapboxes about homosexuality. I also wish someone would call a truce, so our society could find something else to talk about. Anyway, you are right.
Report this comment
ltb
Mar. 15, 2013 at 7:20pmBTW, I don’t want anyone to think that it doesn’t irritate me that Portman came out in support of gay marriage, because I don’t believe America should even be having this discussion. You can rest assured that activists are using gay marriage to silence Christianity in America, because once it is legally recognized they will start suing churches into oblivion if they refuse to marry two men. Politically, we need to do everything possible to stop these people. With respect to the Gospel, we need to do everything possible to let these people know that God loves them.
Report this comment
DeniseJ
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:14pmNow Portman can switch parties – he has shown he thinks with his emotions rather than his brain. Don’t need him calling himself (R). Wreck society so his little boy can feel good about pursuing his folly…..little do the gays know it’s not really about gays…..Polygamy, NAMBLA, bestiality are in the wings with this agenda, along with “child sexual liberation”…..oh, and of course, ousting religious believers from social service,and denying them the right to express themselves. But it’s ok, as long as Portman and son FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT…
Report this comment
Mr.buff1959
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:23pmOnly in your simple mind.
Report this comment
Gorp
Mar. 16, 2013 at 12:38am“Portman’s shocking decision was made following a personal, family revelation” He also said he had a change of heart.
I’m wondering what else he’d change because of a personal, family revelation and change of heart? Will his stand on the Constitution change due to a family revelation? How about the Bill of Rights? What if one of his kids reveals they are atheist will he want “In God We Trust” taken of our money? How about drunk driving or drugs?
The list can go on and on depending on personal, family revelations and changes of heart.
Report this comment
shorelineliz
Mar. 16, 2013 at 4:14amThis is their rational isn’t it. And he DARE NOT disagree with his son’s choices, right? Cause that would make him just a mean old, bad old, I mean, so mean father if he EVER DARED disagree with his little gay boy, huh?
THIS is why the GOP is in the toilet!
In my day: a Father would say to his son: “Now son. That is not a good choice. Let’s get you some help okay? I will take you to the doctor, or the minister, or some place to get your help.”
But now? “I just want my son to be happy” and ” he is happy being a **** pirate or someone else’s **** pirate.”
This Senator from Ohio is the definition of: Permissive Parent. And a Permissive Parent always has a child who runs amuck.
Hay Senator! Here is a news flash: Your son will probably die in his late 50s from some kind of disease. He will drink himself into live disease or a heart attack or stroke over this. He will medicate himself statistically more and drink alcohol more than any other man in the United States over this. Statistically YOU will live longer than he.
Still want him to be HAPPY?
Report this comment
Goldi-lox
Mar. 16, 2013 at 5:28amThese people who are opposed to the gay lifestyle but then promptly change their stance when a friend or relative announces their “gay-ety” are disgusting.
Either the lifestyle is wrong or it is not. It’s like saying they’re opposed to drug abuse, then they find out their offspring are drug addicts, so now they are gung-ho about the addiction. YUKKKKKK!
Report this comment
NukeHaze
Mar. 16, 2013 at 2:46pm1FREEVOICE:
Sexual orientation is hetero at birth. The desire to procreate is inherent in all living things. In order to do so as a human being, it requires a man and a woman. You cannot argue for the existence of the God you say and then argue that he would create you in such a way that you could not obey the second “commandment” that was ever given to humanity.
All this bruhaha about being born that way is exactly that… total bunk. This comes from environment, abuse, severely twisted education, destruction of the nuclear family, an demasculinazation of every man in society. These progressives who claim they believe all people are equal and there is no difference between the genders seem more bent on population control through death panels and abortion of new babies, the Margaret Sanger way, eugenics, the complete lives system, propagating homosexuality to prevent more child births… do not seem to practice those things because they truly believe they are the elite chosen few to inherit th Earth after they are done cleansing it.
These ideas are evil constructs and not of God but of the adversary. These things should not be forced upon us by such horrible people who intend to be divisive all the while claiming that it is those who disagree with their lifestyle are the divisive ones. Anyone with a brain can see the truth here. They have the freedom to choose. If they think a one issue party is needed, go and make the Homomarriagiacrat Party then. I am sure it wil
Report this comment
Xempyreum
Mar. 16, 2013 at 4:36pmWith all these goofballs upset about CPAC, maybe they should start their own group and call it FudgePAC?
Report this comment
carkrueger
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:53amGood for Senator Portman, I’m sure he wrestled with the issue. I respect his decision.
Report this comment
UBETHECHANGE
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:00amThe Limited Government Case Against Gay Marriage http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/11/the-limited-government-case-against-gay-marriage
Report this comment
fulcrum
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:01amWhy is it that progressive and liberal politicians always look after their best interest instead of what’s better for the collective and or majority.
I would expect a gay constituent person to feel that way, but there’s no room in political leadership for selfish people who only care about their personal interest and not whats’the best interest of society or the majority of his constituents.
All my kids could tell me tomorrow that they’re gay and I still would not support gay marriage.
It’s the reason why Obama is failing miserably because he’s self centered, narcisisttic, self glorifying fool.
Report this comment
stablepar
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:32amdoesn’t sound like the right way to make laws. kind of deciding gun laws for the people based on what you think as opposed by the constitution and and God’s natural laws
right is right and wrong is wrong and never the twain shall meet. the tain’t is there for a reason
Report this comment
Cavallo
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:33amGet Government completely out of Marriage. Let private individuals define it. That isn’t what the queers want though, they want to use the police power of government to force you to associate and accept their life style.
Report this comment
Bot
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:52amThere has been a concerted 25 year effort to “brainwash” the American people to portray homosexuals as “victims” and to treat opponents of “homosexual rights” as Nazi/KKK-like “bigots”. An entire book (After the Ball: How Americans will Conquer their Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990′s) was written by an advertising man and a media psychologist to concoct a propaganda campaign only Josef Goebbels could admire. You can read an abbreviated version of the strategy written in 1987 called “The Overhauling of Straight America”. Among other things, the authors said that homosexuals must be constantly and persistently portrayed as “victims” to elicit Americans’ natural tendencies to protect the oppressed. For that reason, the pedophiles in the sodomite movement must stand down from visible participation in the movement — at least until low-hanging fruit like “marriage” and military service were achieved — because nobody would consider a pedophile to be a “victim”..
Sen. Portman, do you understand you are part, now, of the “slippery slope” toward secularism?
Report this comment
Bluebonnet
Mar. 15, 2013 at 12:21pm@FULCRUM, I support your stance. I feel the same way. If my children or grand children felt they loved someone of the same sex, that’s their choice (wrong but their decision) Just don’t ruin marriage institution between a man and a woman.
Portman, you can still love your son, but not his choice, not support gay marriage just because of your son. That doesn’t change anything. Many family members do things we don’t approve of, but accept, but marriage of the same sex is a sham and against God’s Will and should. not to be recognized by laws of this land. For goodness sake, don’t drag the rest of us into it with laws.
Report this comment
GoodStuff
Mar. 15, 2013 at 1:04pm@Carkrueger
“Good for Senator Portman, I’m sure he wrestled with the issue. I respect his decision.”
Wrong, it’s actually a sign that his father does NOT love his son. If he loved his son, he would be doing everything he could to tell him what the Bible says about sin and hell. Instead, he has no problem with his sinful son bound for a literal place called Hell.
Portman is like a doctor who refuses to tell a patient they have cancer because he doesn’t want to offend the patient. That’s not love.
Portman is like a firefighter who does nothing while a house burns down with his son inside. That’s not love.
Actual LOVE is to tell homosexuals about sin, judgement and Hell; so that they can find salvation through Christ and not have to go to Hell. That’s LOVE!
Report this comment
neocon1
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:51amSORRY ROB………you were ELECTED to REPRESENT the people in your district NOT your sons pathologies.
QUIT if you cant or WONT do the damn job you were hired to do that WE are paying you for.!!
Report this comment
carl_in_ohio
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:16amWell said! I agree!
Elected officials are chosen based on their platform.
He just flipped his opinion. So, all the people who voted for him based on what he would promote/support/defend — have been duped!
I guess a politician can say anything to get elected – and then once elected, voted however they feel.
Remember this at election time!
Report this comment
tnman65
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:34amWell put. That’s the best response I’ve heard in a while.
Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:50amYep. He should man up and resign. I’m going to email him today and ask for his resignation.
I’m glad he used the term “faith tradition” so everyone will know that he never had any real faith. I’m just glad his son didn’t turn out to be a murderer, who knows how he would feel about the homocide laws since his principles can be changed by his childrens bahavior.
Report this comment
Small World
Mar. 15, 2013 at 11:29amAmen! He need to resign! You all should go to http://you tube/the truth about the sodomites.com See Feb. 10 2013.It’s about 1 hr. long but very informative. Near the end talks about all the health problems.We need to start calling it what it is sodomy nothing gay about it.
Report this comment
TheCalmOne
Mar. 15, 2013 at 7:02pm@NEOCON1 – No, there is a difference between representation and delegation. What you are talking about is delegation. Your senator is your representative, not your delegate.
Report this comment
UBETHECHANGE
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:47amNo surprise. Rob Portman is my Senator. Ugh. He is a United Methodist leftist progressive. Don’t let the R after his name fool you. Also he to easily works with the marxists on the other side of aisle. He says being gay is not a choice. Well I have news for him, I am an ex-lesbian and I found my way back to Jesus and God’s Word. I am truly free! Being against gay marriage is a case for limited government. He needs to go when his term is up.
Report this comment
zorro
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:03amI don’t understand this mentality. Being against SSM doesn’t mean you’re against homosexuals in any way. Why do people think that if something “is” then something else “ought” to be. There are gays against SSM. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Report this comment
UBETHECHANGE
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:09amWhen I was gay, I was not for SSM and I still am not.
Report this comment
pragmaticpatriot
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:14amI find the (R) after some elected offals to stand for ‘Regressive’, as in Progressive in regression
Report this comment
jeanr
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:40amUBETHECHANGE: Good. Nobody is making you marry anybody that you don’t want to. That does not mean other people should be kept from marrying whom they want to, though.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:20am@jeanr: It also means no one should be forced to support them in their twisted venture.
Report this comment
hatchetjob
Mar. 15, 2013 at 2:06pmRight on, GURUMEDITATION, well said!!
Report this comment
jeanr
Mar. 15, 2013 at 3:07pmAssuming that you are an American, you aren’t being forced to support it either. Just leave them alone in the same way that you want to be alone when you excerise your rights…I’m sure you do plenty of things that I do not support, but that does not make your rights any less significant than mine just because I don’t like them. I will simply leave you alone to do whatever it is that you do.
Report this comment
tootsie roll
Mar. 15, 2013 at 4:43pmGod bless you and keep you
Report this comment
Sargeking
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:46amI always had my doubts about Portman and now I know why.
Report this comment
stablepar
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:41amubetthechange i am not trying to be critical but i doubt that you were gay. you may have thought you were gay or may have made excuses to think you were. as i see it people don’t have a closet that they can jump in and out of. we are created straight and make the choice to sin
Report this comment
crazyrightwingmom
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:50amub: you are so wrong….we are not born gay or straight…and we do not jump in and out of different proclivities…but people do evolve and many successfully evolve out of homosexuality.
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:21amHe may just might have they gay gene they like to talk about.
Report this comment
FlagWavingPatriot
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:45amSo much attention goes to that puny minority of deviants. Disgusting.
Rob (you don’t deserve the respect of your title), you disappoint me. I not only voted for you, but I also donated money to you on multiple occasions. You will not be receiving either in the future.
Report this comment
Helen Hyde
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:43amWhat ever happened to moral absolutes? It is either wrong or it isn’t.
But then, when has that ever mattered to a politician?
Report this comment
TheCalmOne
Mar. 15, 2013 at 7:13pm“Moral absolutes” do not have a place in a modern democracy. If you want “moral absolutes” you should be living in a theocracy, like Iran.
Report this comment
crazyrightwingmom
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:38amHaving a “gay”son as I do does not mean I support gay marriage, nor does he expect me to. I mourn for him, but my standards as to what is best for the world do not change.
By the way, Mr. Portman….sexual orientation is not fixed.
Report this comment
poorrichard09
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:43amSeems there is a real separation of the RINOS from real Conservatives-good!
Just think, this spineless dude was almost a presidential candidate.
Report this comment
crazyrightwingmom
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:43amAnd also…I love him more than anything! And he knows it.
Report this comment
Grace1798
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:37amMatthew 16:26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life [his blessed life in the kingdom of God]? Or what would a man give as an exchange for his [blessed] life [in the kingdom of God]? SO IF the entire world population, every man, woman and child and even animals say that it’s OKAY to be Gay……then after you die, you stand before God’s White Throne Judgment Seat and He asks you why you rejected His Word and His Son? Will it really matter that the entire world backs you ya think? NOOOOOOOOO. It won’t.
Report this comment
00100111
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:48amYou seem to be thinking one can’t be against something personally but at the same time know it isn’t the role of the Federal govt to be involved in it. I am personally against gay marriage, so guess what, I didn’t marry another guy. It is not the role of govt and it is not my place to use the govt to enforce my beliefs on others. If we start that, then we make it ok for whomever else in power to use it for the same reason. The federal govt doesn’t enforce religious beliefs or personal ethics and values.
Report this comment
hauschild
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:35amAnother RINO exposed.
Next?!?!?
Report this comment
Grace1798
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:40amIf my child decided to be “gay,” I would not reject them however, I would point out Scripture to them on this subject and that would be that. I would NEVER support that which would condemn their eternal souls to Hell. Remember…….God is the Final Judge not me. I cannot send anyone to hell or to heaven. But God can and does. But our kids know the Bible……we made sure of that.
Report this comment
jeanr
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:41amAnd I bet they would visit you all the time. You sound like a really nice, accepting, fun person.
Report this comment
joeslick
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:34amIf it’s wrong, it’s wrong. I want my kids to be happy too. If one of them told me they were gay, I would still love them and still want them to be happy, but I could not change my feelings and condone it.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:34amso basically there was no principle behind his previous position – only party politics? I bet that is the case with most of the republicans up there
Report this comment
Gonzo
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:38amAgreed, how many would be perfectly happy to ban guns and raise taxes if they thought it wouldn’t effect their reelection? Rand 2016.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:13amI don’t know if there was no principle behind his previous position but i do know perception is often conditional.
A lot of Dads hate soccer until their kids play it.
Tons of people are anti-gun until their house gets robbed.
Many women are pro-choice until they carry a live baby in their belly for 9 months.
People change.
Report this comment
Locked
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:47amGood point, East.
Doesn’t change what God says on the matter; but it’s not his job as a politician to legislate the Bible, nor is it within anyone’s power except Christ’s to save his son.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:31amI guess if his son was straight, but in love with an illegal alien, he would then become pro amnesty? Definition of spineless.
Report this comment
Ben__Franklin
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:48amYep, this turds time is up in Congress. He does not represent his Constituents. He represents his son. It does not matter if he is an R , a D, or an I.
Report this comment
Mandors
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:18amVery nice point.
Report this comment
Brentley
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:31amMr.Senator, I don’t care what you say!!…GOD SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG!!! End of Statement. I don’t care what your Minister Says, I don’t care what another Senator says, I don’t care what the Pope says. GOD SAYS IT IS WRONG!!..So who do we listen to? I will listen to GOD! It really is just that simple. So MR SENATOR, if you want votes do or say what you want. If you are a CHRISTIAN then you cannot support Gay Marriage. Really very simple.
Report this comment
TheCalmOne
Mar. 15, 2013 at 7:17pmHave you considered moving to Iran?
Report this comment
cpcodsummer
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:29amA politician that has told his voters that he can understand other points of view only after they apply to him and his own family/kind. He is done in politics. He can’t be trusted to vote on any issues that his own family isn’t currently involved.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:29amI can’t imagine if one of my sons told me he was gay. I do know that I would not support gay marriage for to do so would be to deny a fundamental doctrine of my faith.
Report this comment
momrules
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:29amOne either has principles or one does not, they do not change or evolve to suit societal or individual demands. It seems that Senator Portman has *evolved* as others have done. The childhood game of Follow the Leader comes to mind.
Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:23amGoogle >>> FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.
Report this comment
momrules
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:29amCIVIL……….I’ve already read this and yes it is real. I am to the point that whenever someone makes fun of a *conspiracy theorist* I investigate said theory. Those who accuse others of wearing tin foil hats need to think about what they are wearing on their own heads and start using the gray matter between their ears.
Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:29am.
He just came out? I find it hard to believe they did noy know their son was gay. Just because you raised a freak of nature does ot mean you have to endorse Gayhomo marriage…..
Report this comment
crazyrightwingmom
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:42amYour comments are gross. And parents are often the last to know after years and years.
Don’t speak about that which you know nothing!
neocon1
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:16amspank
BINGO you are 100% spot on
Report this comment
Bamagal0007
Mar. 15, 2013 at 12:29pmWhy do you have to be such a jerk?
Report this comment
lhills
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:28amUgh. I’m about done with the Blaze. I hate to say it, but it’s true. This site has been pushing the gay marriage angle ever since Glenn Beck changed his mind. It will never be a conservative position. Maybe a libertarian, maybe a Republican, but never ever ever a conservative one. True conviction means standing firm even when it’s hard, unpopular, and personally difficult. People who allow their beliefs to be determined by the changing winds of popular culture are not conservative and they certainly aren’t Christians either. Beck and the “pastors” who advised Portman have shown that they put man above God and popularity above conviction. Winning elections by embracing immorality would be hollow and meaningless.
Report this comment
BehindBlueEyes
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:42amI didn’t realize the Blaze was pushing the gay agenda. Can you explain or provide links supporting your claim? You can’t possibly take issue with the reporting of this story as justification.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:08amI think LHILLS just means that the Blaze are trying to make it an unignorable elephant in the room that we must discuss.
As for it never being a conservative position.. that depends on why you are conservative..
If you’re Conservative about protecting the Constitution, you seek to get the Feds out of marriage while simultaneously recognizing that gay unions should have the same government status as straight unions.
If you’re Conservative about maintaining the traditional Judeo-Christian norms of our society and think the government has a responsibility to maintain these ethics regardless of the Constitution, then no, Gay marriage won’t ever be a Conservative position.
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:21am@hills
You are correct in that as Christians we are to follow God, not man. Christ even says that we cannot follow two masters, so why is Glenn and Billy (the person who penned this “article”) doing so? Many have told me that I was “ridged and unmoving” on stances such as this that I take. I tell them that narrow is the path for everlasting life, wide is the path to destruction. I’m old enough to know that people will do what people will do, regardless of what God says.
“For me and my family, we will follow God!” Don’t like it, fine, I don’t and will not recognize an abomination as sinless.
Report this comment
lhills
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:25amThese are just from the past couple of weeks. Just saying there is one of the articles almost every day now. I don’t see the Blaze rushing to cover those who are still opposed to gay marriage. And their coverage of pro-gay supporters went from an occasional piece to an all out everyday thing as soon as Glenn became more vocal about his position. Enough already, we don’t need an update every single time a “conservative” changes their mind.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/28/s-e-cupp-tells-theblaze-why-she-supports-gay-republican-groups-and-how-the-gop-should-handle-the-issue/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/s-e-cupp-pulls-out-of-cpac-until-groups-groups-gay-republicans-are-embraced/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/03/obamas-faith-a-possession-prank-and-the-gops-gay-marriage-debacle-these-are-the-top-faith-stories-of-the-week/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/dana-loesch-discusses-cpac-controversy-more-voices-not-less/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/is-gay-marriage-becoming-a-conservative-position/
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/03/01/national-review-cpac-christie-goproud/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/republican-senator-endorses-gay-marriage-after-his-son-comes-out/#respond
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:27am@Eastinfection
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
– John Quincy Adams
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:31am2GODBETHEGLORY…
I don’t think Glenn endorses same-sex marriage on a personal spiritual level but simply thinks there’s no Constitution argument to prevent them.
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:31am@Eastinfection
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
– Supreme Court
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892)
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:33am@Eastinfection
“Whosoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:36am@Eastinfection
Still waiting for two quotes to post.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:49am2GOD..
Those are great quotes reflecting the personal beliefs and principles of great men but those same great men failed to define marriage, or authorize the Federal government to define marriage when they drafted the Constitution.
I try to look at things Constitutionally when it comes to legislation.
If there was an amendment granting government the right to define marriage, i would stand by that Constitutional definition.
but there isn’t.. so it’s up to the States to define.. but they can’t define it in such a way that it gives tax preferences to straights over gays because that would be unconstitutional.
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:49am@Eastinfection
If your desire is to prevent government endorsement of anything that could be construed as religious, well, that’s just impossible. If your intent is to usurp the foundation of this country, then fine, say so. Own it. If you think that government should have nothing to do with it fine, then nothing means nothing, then no one gets tax breaks for being married (can’t even asked), and no “registration” of marriage at ANY court, county, or government department on ANY level. You WILL NOT force me AT ANY level to recognize a “marriage” (abomination) between two unholy creatures. People say that they don’t want to “make anyone” go against their religion and that “we only want the government to recognize that they have rights too”. THIS IS A LIE!!! By forcing government to recognize an abomination as “good”, then you force business owners and the government to grant their “God Given Rights” of marriage (children, tax breaks, insurance, ect.). By forcing the government you are forcing the people. I will NEVER recognize an abomination as marriage.
Report this comment
lhills
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:53am@behindblueeyes i did post an extensive list of links as per your request but it must have triggered the spam filter. just search “gay marriage” in the Blaze search bar and you will see a pretty big list just for the last two weeks. Almost all of them revolve around a “conservative” changing their mind. Just saying, you rarely saw an article like that before and now they are posting them almost daily. You can’t tell me that a solid month of conservatives-are-seeing-the-light-and-embracing-gay-marriage doesn’t point to an agenda.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:57am2GOD…
I’m not trying to force you or the government to do anything. If you are against gay marriage… great. Work hard to get an amendment passed defining marriage as you see fit.
In the meantime, the Feds don’t have the authority to arbitrarily define it… or collect unbalanced revenue based on their arbitrary definition.
Report this comment
lhills
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:04amSorry about the double post. Guess the comment went through after all. My bad!
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:09am@Eastinfection
Maybe you need to work hard and amend the constitution to prevent the country to recognize any union. Also to prevent the government from even asking (census, medical..as they have taken over, business, tax forms, local government, etc.)
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:16am@Eastinfection
You are correct that the constitution did not allow for government to define marriage. The government (local and federal) have broken the constitution many times in that regard. However, you cannot use a double negative in your argument, as liberals will states that your argument supports their decision as an endorsement FOR government sponsored homosexual marriage.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:23amI do work hard at spreading the “get the government out of marriage” philosophy.
Lest you misunderstand my position, it goes like this:
I am a Catholic. The only definition of marriage that means something to me spiritually is the Catholic church’s. They won’t marry gays and i don’t want them to either. The church’s definition is important enough to me that i have been celibate since my divorce and don’t intend to ever re-marry because the church doesn’t recognize divorce. The State does, however, so i am legally divorced. I will never be spiritually divorced from my ex, however.
If another church wants to marry gays or allow divorcees to re-marry- that’s their prerogative.
But the Feds should have nothing to say about any of it.
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 11:08am@Eastinfection
So, following your logic, it’s ok for beastealogy, as it does not hurt anyone and not in the constitution? How about marriage to a dog? Your argument is wrought with holes as large as the liberal argument.
The reason why the framers did not put something like that in the constitution is because it was unheard of for someone to seek confirmation by the government for their actions such as this. If you bothered to do any historical digging, you would find that government had NOTHING to do with birth, marriage, or death at the time of the framing of the constitution. All of those where written in the family bible, not the state. It’s obvious why the people who support abomination (like you), do not want it like it was when our framers formed this nation, it would force you to speak as Christ spoke, to LIVE the WORD. You state that “it’s not the governments business”, however, you promote your ideas in direct response to a senator who “changes his stance” on homosexual marriage, which is in DIRECT contradiction to GODS WILL. You say you support your church and the views of the church, but you OPENLY ENDORSE the rights of others to commit an abomination, under the auspices of “it’s their right”. Would that be a God given right, as the founders put it?
May you get right with God, and follow his WILL IN ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR LIFE!
Report this comment
TRYLiBERTY
Mar. 15, 2013 at 2:14pm@2Godbetheglory,
Thought I’d drop in to expand the conversation. Marriage, at its base is a contract between to willing participants (we both obviously see it between a man and women). But because this is a voluntary association between two willing people, marrying an animal, incapable of consenting to terms, such as vows, is impossible, and a moot and ridiculous notion unworthy of serious debate.
Another thing, how do you interpret the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate and Signed by President Adams in 1797; specifically noting Article 11, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 3:44pm2GOD…
Bestiality isn’t a valid comparison because animals cannot provide informed consent.
You keep saying i endorse gay marriage when i don’t.
I don’t endorse government interference with religious sacraments, period.
I also don’t think the government has any right treat gays differently than straights when it comes to hospital visitations, taxes, etc.
That’s my only argument. If you want to speculate beyond that- go ahead but don’t put words in my mouth.
I can separate my Constitutional views from my religious views. i’m not a Theocrat, but it sounds as though you are. That’s fine. I support the first amendment.
Report this comment
2GodBeTheGlory
Mar. 15, 2013 at 4:42pm@TRYLiBERTY
Although I understand what the president and the senators that where available at the time that this was read and past (23 of the 32 where present) where doing, I do not agree with how it was put forth. Also note:
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However, it is the English text which was ratified by Congress. Miller says, “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.”
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.” Lambert writes
Note #2:
No academic historian has suggested the treaty provides evidence to settle that question in either direction. In addition many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early-Republic
Report this comment
BehindBlueEyes
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:55pm@LHILLS
Thanks for the list, I haven’t had time to look over what is being said in each but will read them and see what I come away with.
Report this comment
gzorpe
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:25amSo I suppose this means Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio would say he now supports grizzly murder if it gave his kid a “Stiffy” because one of his sons came out and told him he’s a serial killer!.
Report this comment
Pastor Melissa
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:24amThe real reason we are in this mess is because the Catholic church gave up the power they held. Centuries ago men would get married in one city and go over to another city and find another wife. The Catholic Church had no way to know who was married to who so they asked the crown to step in and keep some sort of record. Thus, the government having their hands in marriage had begun.
I believe we should de-legislate marriage and do taxes and connecting decisions based on who is living in the home. I am extremely libertarian on this issue.It is not about how we define marriage. It is about taking government out of marriage.
Report this comment
Brentley
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:35amPastor Melissa? You really need to read your bible! GOD endorses and set the rules for marriage long before the Catholic Church ever came into being. One Woman One Man = Marriage. Nothing else PERIOD. I don’t care what you think, how you think or why you think it. THE BIBLE SAYS…ONE MAN ONE WOMAN..PERIOD. So please read your bible, pray and see if the LORD will open the eyes of your heart. Problem is we want to think and do what we want rather than what GOD SAYS!
Report this comment
pragmaticpatriot
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:25amTo me the answer should be ‘That is A State Issue’, having moved from a blue to a red state i find that living among people with similar values make more agreeable neighbors
Report this comment
Pastor Melissa
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:47amBrentley: Than give the RITE back to the church.
PragmaticPatriot: It can’t be a state issue when the IRS decides how couples verse singles taxed.
Report this comment
00100111
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:54amBrentley. Where, in everything you said, makes it the role of the federal govt to have anything to do with that?
Report this comment
Pastor Melissa
Mar. 15, 2013 at 12:00pm00100…: Thank you.
Report this comment
DeadBuffalo
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:19amHe “wants all three of his children to have happy lives with people they love”? Seems to me this can be accomplished with out the the marriage step.
Report this comment
Sharon Rose
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:16amSad.
Report this comment
ares338
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:13amOh…so it’s different if YOUR son is a cork soaker huh? Spineless basturd.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:17amThat is about the size of it. Had that been my son, I would always love him, but would also disagree with him.
Report this comment
jeanr
Mar. 15, 2013 at 9:43amAnd you guys are confused about why you are less and less relevant in the modern American political structure?
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:19amMy son would have to find a different place to live. Would still love him though.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:24amI think a small but never diminishing proportion of sons find it hard to measure up (stand in their father’s shadow) or don’t get support because their father is so successful and busy.
It has been noted that scientists often measure what is easy to measure and ignore things that are not easy to measure.
Report this comment
Walkabout
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:29amCorrelation … Causation … Study this …. Ignore that …
Gay kids are often bullied. Small kids are often bullied. Weak kids are often bullied. Different kids are often bullied.
Turn it around. Maybe the kids are gay because they were bullied. Bullied kids in every case do not turn out gay. Nor do they in the majority of cases. But that does not mean it does not happen. And it would be hard to tease out the data given all the different processes & noise. Nor would it be the only cause for homosexuality.
Look at Private Manning. He was small for his age. He still is small.
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Mar. 15, 2013 at 3:43pmThis is what you must know:
If you had a daughter who came out to you as gay, and she and her partner decided to get married, would you go to the wedding?
It is so.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 5:06pmSENSEI…
I would. I’d go with bells on if it helped.
I wouldn’t pat for it, though….
of course i wouldn’t pay for my straight daughter’s marriage, either… but that’s mostly because Bush, Obama, and the EPA have conspired to destroy my industry c/o the the Lead Paint RPP mandate.
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Mar. 15, 2013 at 5:16pmMr or Ms EASTINFECTION,
This is what you must know:
Oh, right, I forgot . . . It’s all about YOU. Clearly you don’t have (or shouldn’t have had) kids. That’s OK. Not everybody is cut out for that level of responsibility. Meanwhile, I don’t want you to think that we don’t appreciate the extra effort you Renovation, Repair, and Painting professionals are making. We do! We really do!
It is so.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 5:20pmoops. t and y are next to each other on my crappy conservative keyboard. I imagine you “high profit” Lib trolls get keyboards that just intuit your letters sans finger-contact though… am i right? Jealous-face here!
Report this comment
YOURSENSEI
Mar. 15, 2013 at 6:00pmMr or Ms EASYNFECTION,
This is whay you musy know:
Don’y worrt abouy iy.
Iy is so.
Report this comment
Mr.buff1959
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:27pmYes you are spineless.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Mar. 15, 2013 at 10:39pmWANGO…
you are- by far- the best troll.
You mock, you make fun…..
but deep down i know that you know that we both know that everybody knows what EVERYBODY knows…. right?
Which is this:
YES. As you mentioned… it is all about ME…
Now gimme my Noble Prize/ Participation Trophy dammit!
Report this comment
RightUnite
Mar. 15, 2013 at 8:11amYeeeah… Way to stay true to your convictions….
Report this comment