Last week, Ohio Senator Rob Portman was in the headlines
for announcing that he had changed his decades-long opposition to same-sex
marriage. He did so because his young
adult son had informed him that he was homosexual.
“I have come to believe that
if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment, to love and care for
each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the
opportunity to get married.”
For any parent to learn of a child’s sexually-gay
orientation must be very upsetting, independently of the parent’s policy
views. There is no doubt that a life
confronted by prejudice from large segments of society awaits, notwithstanding
the lessening of public hostility which polls suggest is now occurring.
But why should
one’s views of the appropriate uniqueness of traditional marriage be changed by
the fact that a parent loves a son who wants to marry a man? Of course, a loving father wants happiness
for his offspring. But is the pursuit of
individual happiness the only factor to be considered?
Senator Portman, by all accounts, is a respected,
thoughtful public official who was previously an active and outspoken supporter
of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Presumably, that was a well-considered position, not fraught with
emotion or hostility to happiness for homosexuals. I do not know whether the GOP lawmaker’s
original views were based on religious beliefs, the fact that traditional
marriage has long served as a bedrock of society or some other reasons. But since Portman has not expressed an
explanation for his new support for gay marriage, other than he has a family
member who does, strongly suggests that his heart won out over his head.
Certainly, he is not to be condemned for that very human
decision. But neither should it be given
weight as a thoughtful challenge to the historical definition of marriage.
If one believes that stealing is wrong, the fact that his
child is a thief should not justify a call to banish the proscription.
No comments:
Post a Comment