All Aboard!

Regarding Sen. Portman's move to support gay marriage, I didn't realize at the time of the writing of my earlier post on the subject that Portman had authored an editorial in the Columbus Dispatch the same day (I only quoted from the piece written about the move).  Since it is important to understand a person as they understand themselves, I want to devote some time to see if the foundation of his argument is anything other than the relativism that I ascribed to it in my earlier post.

Two paragraphs in, Portman recounts how his son told him and his wife that he is in fact gay:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

But an argument for gay marriage shouldn't hinge on the fact of "orientation."  Whether something such as gay marriage is a positive good or not is not at all proved by the fact that some people are gay.  Let's move on.

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

This typifies a basic conservative "faith" argument and should give one pause to wonder if Sen. Portman thought seriously at all about gay marriage before his son's coming out.  The argument, as seen here, is rooted in the person's "faith" or "faith tradition" and implies that that is probably the sole ground for anyone to be against gay marriage or abortion, for instance.  But maybe even Portman himself is ignorant of the Declaration of Independence's ground on nature and nature's God, or reason and revelation.  Natural law or natural right does not depend on any sectarian claims, and it allows me to write the sentences I am currently typing out.  By cosigning being against gay marriage to matters of simple belief, Portman agrees with those mainly on the Left about those who are anti-gay marriage; he's just nicer about it and doesn't call them bigots.

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

But believing that we are all children of God doesn't follow that we must condone everything our children may do.

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.

Conservatives are right to believe in "personal liberty" and "minimal government interference" but surely Portman is not a hedonist.  Personal liberty does not condone theft or murder; that defense would be laughed out of a court room.  In words of Abraham Lincoln, echoing James Wilson, we do not have a right to do a wrong.  But I guess since being anti-gay marriage comes merely from "belief" then none of this matters too much since no actual rational thought seems to be part of the decision making.

Ronald Reagan said all great change in America begins at the dinner table, and that’s been the case in my family. Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.

An invocation of Ronald Reagan; I am surprised it didn't come earlier.  But just because more people are in support of gay marriage is not an argument about its rightness.  This is simple majoritarianism, which unfortunately is the foundation for many arguments on the Left and Right.  I should note that a simple belief, if you will, in the majority seems to be one main supports of Portman's pro-gay marriage argument.

Since gay marriage seems to be all but inevitable to Sen. Portman, it seems he had a train to catch.