Tag Archives: Senator Rob Portman

Articles of Interest

God (Not SCOTUS) Will Be The Final Judge On Gay “Marriage”

Leave a comment

By Fred Weinberg

There seems to have been a shift in the Republican party away from opposing so-called gay marriage and towards an acceptance of homosexuals being able to be married with the state’s imprimatur.

I can understand Senator Rob Portman’s position.  His son is gay, and he is still his son, and he loves him.

I saw Nicole Wallace on Fox News Sunday taking a similar position.  She worked in the Bush 43 White House.  I certainly understand Vice President Dick Cheney’s position because his situation is similar to Portman’s.

Here is my problem with all of that.

The state’s imprimatur.

As I have said many times in this space, what you do on your own time and who you do it with is your own business, and I don’t really care.

But.  Please include me out.

I don’t care if you covet Paris Hilton or Perez Hilton; but why do I need to know about it, much less be forced to approve of it?

If two people of the same sex want to set up housekeeping, they can enter into a civil union, which should give them every right that a married couple has.  And, for the record, I think the federal government should only involve itself in marriage where it is forced to (and, thus, parts of the Defense of Marriage Act probably ARE unconstitutional.)

Why is it so important for me to do anything but wish a gay couple well?

And by me, I mean all of us.

Truth be told, I don’t really know whether or not God believes that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong or that marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, he certainly arranged our plumbing to accommodate that theory.

I suspect that people on my side of the argument may eventually lose to a pop culture that places a heavy value on doing whatever feels good at the moment; and there will be, on the surface, acceptance of gay marriage.

If that’s the case, I’m glad I won’t be around to see the long-term effects.  Ultimately, it won’t be Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsburg making the judgments. It will be a much higher authority, and I suspect that it will be loud and clear.

How do I know?

I don’t.  But, being willing to make a wager, I can calculate odds.  Let me quote William Shatner’s “Boston Legal” character, Denny Crane, when asked if he believed in God and why:

“If you believe in God and it turns out there is no God, there’s no harm no foul. . .but if you don’t believe in God and there is a God, you’re screwed.”

So, you need to ask yourself a question.  And, as the number of your tomorrows becomes significantly fewer than your yesterdays, the question may be more pressing.

The question is: do you want to bet against God?  For all eternity? Those seem like pretty big odds, even for a value player.

I cannot tell you whether there …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Articles of Interest

Newt Nails It

Leave a comment

By Steve Deace

Newt Gingrich speech 4 SC Newt Nails It

Back in January, I wrote a column for Townhall.com expressing my disappointment that Newt Gingrich appeared to be waving the white flag in defense of marriage.

This time, I come not to bury the former House Speaker but to praise him. In the wake of Senator Rob Portman deciding his son’s thoughts on sexuality are more important than God’s, Gingrich was one of several Republican standard-bearers asked to comment on the issue of marriage by the mainstream media.

And in an interview on CNN, Gingrich gave about the best answer a politician in his position possibly could:

“Well, my stance (on marriage) hasn’t evolved. I believe as the Bible teaches, marriage is between a man and woman. I actually think that marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what politicians decide. I don’t think they have the power to change what is a religiously inspired definition. I’m not going to second guess Rob Portman. He’s an old personal friend. I think when you have somebody in your immediate family who comes out, you have three choices: You can say, ‘I believe my principles so much, I’m kicking you out.’ You can say, ‘I still believe in my principles, but I love you.’ Or you can say, ‘Gee, I love you so much I’m changing my principles.’ Rob picked the third path. That’s his prerogative. I’m not going to second guess him. But I would also say that historically in the long run, marriage will be between man and woman, that’s been the definition for thousands of years and I don’t think politicians will change that.”

Gingrich may be Catholic, but this is an answer that even the Protestant reformer Martin Luther would’ve been proud of because this is grace and law at its finest. The fact it came in less 300 words to a culture with a short attention span is a bonus. Gingrich’s approach to this question in this particular interview is one that should be emulated by conservatives who will be forced to follow in his footsteps.

First, Gingrich clearly asserts the standard, and where the standard comes from. Instead of falling into the trap of using politically-correct terminology like “traditional marriage” Gingrich simply calls marriage what it is—“marriage.” If we didn’t already have a definition for marriage, we wouldn’t have to argue over redefining it, so why do those who accept the proper definition preemptively volunteer to redefine it themselves? Gingrich also calls upon the Word of God as where he gets that understanding from. For too long, we have been gun shy about doing this. The Word of God is sharper than any double-edged sword, and it’s the best weapon we have. So why would we mothball it? Imagine a general who had a weapon at his disposal to devastate his enemy, but he chose not to use it in battle because it would offend his adversary. What kind of general would do that? Answer: a very bad one. Gingrich calls upon the Bible as the …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism