A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from the Columbus Dispatch and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.
Well isn’t that special? I can see how the pro-gay people would see people like Portman as unprincipled opportunists.
And it isn’t just the gay issue. I see this a lot, including people who claim the name of Christ and not only don’t warn against pre-marital sex but actually let them sleep together under their roof! I think they are afraid that if these were “really” sins (and of course they are) that it would reflect badly on them. Or they feel guilty because, whether accurate or not, they think they were part of the reason their kids are sinning. So they put themselves in the place of God and decide what isn’t a sin. It’s just that easy! What could go wrong when we try to usurp God’s authority?
“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have—to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman said.
No, if his son has gay relationships they can never be like the one he and his wife have, because they can never produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Words mean things.
He also implies that if the government doesn’t promote his son’s relationships that they are preventing him from having those relationships. That is false.
In an interview with CNN, Portman said his son, then a freshman at Yale University, told him “that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it’s just part of who he is, and that he’d been that way for as long as he could remember.”
I’ve been a sinner as long as I can remember, too, but I don’t use that as an excuse to celebrate my sins.
. . . He also told CNN that he sought guidance from former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay.
Portman said Cheney’s advice to him was simple: “Follow your heart.”
That is terrible, worldly advice. As Jeremiah 17:9 notes, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Think about that carefully. Deceitfulabove all things. That’s pretty deceitful. Desperately sick. That’s pretty sick. Who can understand it? No one. So don’t follow it.
If you really love people, you’ll put their long-term best interests first. You won’t lie to them to prop up your popularity.
Update: Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrat’s platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
The Democrats, and the media who advance their cause, are the real extremists.
Many media types, politicians and false teachers reflexively use the “extremist” label against conservatives and say we’re being divisive. Apparently that is easier than addressing the issues and arguments themselves, but it seems more like a concession speech to me.
Read CNN: making it illegal to kill girls for being girls is “divisive” for the latest example. Let’s see: nearly four out of 5 people think gender-selection and partial-birth abortions should be illegal, but we’re the extremists? It seems to me that killing a female human being for the sole reason that she is a female human being is pretty extreme — especially when those in favor of it being legal are accusing us of waging a war on women. Being divisive is good when one of the options is so deadly.
But those who hyperventilate about the “radical right” (or “extremists,” “fundie nutjobs,” “wacky fundies,” or other eloquent terms of endearment) are either disingenuous or really bad at math, because the majority of Americans share our views on the most controversial topics. Consider this by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason:
A poll of readers of the L.A. Times once showed that, in the area of abortion, prayer, in school, homosexuality and traditional family values, the majority of Americans agree with so-called “extreme fundamentalists.” 70% of Americans believe that the traditional family structure is always best; 76% favor prayer in public schools; 55% are against legalized abortion; 61% think that homosexual relations are always wrong. These are the views of the “radical right,” but these are also the views of a majority of rank and file Americans.
Let that bolster your confidence, the next time you’re being marginalized for your conservative moral values. The “radical right” isn’t so radical. It’s actually mainstream.
If we’re so extreme, why have citizens in over 30 states voted to maintain the original meaning of marriage? This issue has never lost at the ballot box. If they think we’re so extreme, why don’t they just use their faux majority to elect legislators to legalize partial-birth abortion and such? Then they wouldn’t need judges to ignore their duties and make up their own laws.
The “extremist” label is just a cheap way to attack the person and not the arguments, just like they do with the passive-aggressive “intolerant” label (Because whoever yells intolerant first must be the kind, tolerant one – right?).
I submit that if the media, entertainment and education establishments weren’t so outrageously biased the numbers would shift even further to the right. For example, consider that 90% or more of the media are die-hard pro-choicers and they do everything in their power to spin stories in their favor. Yet the population is still split pretty evenly on the topic and the pro-choice % is shrinking — and the more clearly survey questions are worded the more pro-life the results are.
The only way you can categorize majority views as the radical right is if you are perched comfortably on the radical left.
* Yes, Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat. Did I mention that he’s a Democrat and not a Republican? Because he is. A Democrat.
Does Homosexual Behavior in Animals Mean it’s Natural for Humans? — Of course not, but that tired and transparently bad argument still gets a lot of mileage. Do you really want to base human morality on what is natural in animals? Male dogs may try to mate with multiple female dogs, “underaged dogs” (i.e., the equivalent of pedophilia), male dogs, your leg, your coffee table and more, but that hardly seems to be a good proxy for what to teach children as being normative. And as Glenn noted in the comments, the “it’s good enough for me if the animals do it!” philosophy wouldn’t work so well if people started killing those who get too close to their nests or started eating their young.
A sad story about a woman who insisted on “selective reduction” (i.e., killing) of two of her triplets. If this couple stays married it will be a minor miracle. Abortion is so transparently wrong it is easy to argue against it in purely logical terms, but it is illuminating to read real stories about it as well to capture how awful it is.
Try getting a woman of the ’70s to believe this. As I keep saying, those babes got to date men who were raised differently, who were excited, not entitled, when women slept with them. Then they raised a bunch of men who think that all normal, healthy adults have sex, and now we’re to the point at which the Third Date Rule is looking a little antiquated.
Way to go, ladies. Way to go. [Golf claps] Now that near-total strangers, who could have incurable STDs, wives, girlfriends, hang-ups, bad BO, or corpses in the back yard, demand that you be alone with them, let them penetrate your body, and potentially impregnate you, let me know how that whole sexual revolution thing has worked out for you. Seems like it’s worked out better for the men that the revolution was supposed to liberate you from.
“The mess has been bigger than a lot of people anticipated at the time,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer from Peosta, Iowa. “We have made steady progress on these fronts but we’re not making progress fast enough. What I continue to believe is that ultimately the buck stops with me. I’m going to be accountable.”
Notice he did not say “I’m accountable.” What Mr. Obama was actually saying was that he’s not actually accountable for any of the issues that at the least, made no better, at worst, made a right big mess, but, that voters will hold him accountable. He trotted out the old Harry Truman line, and spun it around. Really
Throughout the interview, whether asked about the economy or next year’s campaign, the president struck a realist tone — conceding the scale of problems facing the country while insisting his administration is working diligently to fix them.
Obama said that even though Americans understand that the economy’s problems are “decades in the making,” voters are “impatient” to see more progress on the economy.
So, he just blamed everyone else for the financial decisions over the past few decades. He tended to also Blame Republicans and Bush throughout the rest of the interview, as well.
Obama has been criticized during his three-day Midwestern bus tour this week for not including new proposals to address the country’s unemployment problem. But in the CNN interview, he defended his administration’s work to coax Congress to act on infrastructure investments, free trade deals with South Korea and Panama, and payroll tax breaks for workers.
“The truth is everything we’ve done has been related to jobs, starting back with the Recovery Act,” Obama said.
True. They are related to jobs, mostly destroying them. What little progress was made created short term jobs (which is what “infrastructure investments” would do) at absurd costs to create.
CNN indulged a classic left media tactic by misleading with a headline in a recent piece on former Governor Sarah Palin. The headline, if read by itself, seems to be saying that Sarah Palin delivered a “gaffe-filled message,” when the truth is that her message talked about gaffes, but wasn’t “filled” with them per se. The effect was that the headline made Palin look worse than the story itself did. If all one read was the headline, one would get a far different opinion of what was going on than if one read the story that went with it.
Think about that headline. Doesn’t it say to you that Palin delivered a bunch of gaffes in her message? If all you did was read that headline, you’d think she made a fool of herself with all sorts of incorrect statements in it. One suspects that CNN fully realized this fact.
Leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, according to an Examiner analysis of the organizations’ most recent IRS Form 990 tax returns.
For comparison, Charity Navigator’s current study of compensation in the nonprofit sector calculates that the median nonprofit CEO salary in the mid-Atlantic region, which includes Washington, D.C., is $164,575.
What a freak show: Author and columnist Virginia Ironside says that a loving mother would smother a sickly child with a pillow and that most adoptees would be better off dead.
Lila Rose is a hero of the pro-life movement, exposing how Planned Parenthood routinely hides statutory rape (among other things). They must be quaking in their boots, because she has many hours of unpublished videos that expose the “rogue employee” excuse for the lie that it is. Check out this from CNN.
Democrats in their own words covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac mess — this is a keeper. Watch Barney, Maxine et al in their fantasy world that ultimately devastated the economy. Oh, but it was all Bush’s fault, right?
The whole CNN piece was a glimpse into the mindset of those who don’t think carefully about matters of life and death, or even insurance, for that matter. Note how many times this worldview is in direct contradiction to reality.
Some segments and my thoughts . . .
Are they one of your success stories?” I asked, pointing behind Dr. H. to a large silver-framed photo of two fat-cheeked babies, identical twins. Dr. H. was my fertility doctor, and this was our first appointment.
“They’re my grandkids,” he explained, then laughed. “But everyone always says the same thing” — he held up his hands, like someone appealing to a higher power, and shook them dramatically — ” ‘We don’t want twins!’ ”
Hilarious, I thought. Dr. H.’s reaction suggested that anyone desperate enough to visit him would take a kid any way she could get one.
“But I really don’t want twins,” I said. “I already have a 3-year-old, and money is tight. One more is all we can handle.”
“Welllll,” Dr. H. replied, “given your age, we need to be aggressive. So I’d recommend going right to IVF. But if you want, we can transfer only one embryo.”
For that privilege, I had my insurer to thank, surprisingly enough: Since my policy covered three rounds of IVF, Dr. H. said, we could be conservative with the number of embryos we implanted each time.
For starters, why should insurance cover IVF at all? Think about it. I would gladly pay less for a plan that doesn’t cover wildly expensive and largely unsuccessful and unnecessary treatments. This is the costly fallacy of many health care discussions. Just because a procedure exists doesn’t mean you have a “right” to it and that others are obliged to provide it. If you can’t have kids and don’t want to adopt, then pay for IVF yourself. We had fertility issues before we were blessed with kids and we would not have used IVF.
“Great,” I replied, with a sigh of relief. “Then let’s get started.”
I left the consultation feeling excited and optimistic. Here was a science so precise that Dr. H. could choose among outcomes — you don’t want twins? Fine. I’ll just implant one embryo.
I was in control, finally. I’d spent months taking my temperature, monitoring my cervical mucus, and visiting an acupuncturist, wondering all the while if these efforts were any more effective than chanting a spell: Bibbity, bobbity, boo!
What if we did just one embryo?
One thing I’d somehow forgotten to ask Dr. H. about was my chance of becoming pregnant using a single embryo. According to research I’d done before seeing him, I knew that the live birth rate for in vitro fertilization for a 43-year-old like me was less than one in 20, and that was when the average number of embryos implanted was three. So going with only one had to worsen the already poor odds, didn’t it? But I kept silent.
Short version: She comes to realize that if she doesn’t implant multiple embryos that her odds of conceiving go down. No kidding.
And we seemed to have luck on our side: The crappy health plan supplied by my husband’s nonprofit employer paid for three IVF cycles. As I said to him after meeting with Dr. H., what did we have to lose?
Again, note how a system that provides three IVF cycles is “crappy.” I’d say providing more than zero is a waste.
. . . “You’re pregnant. In fact, your levels are quite high.” He paused. “And I’m afraid it might be twins.” He sounded apologetic; maybe he’d registered my objections after all.
I reminded him that when we did the insemination, he’d said that although I’d produced four follicles — as opposed to the one generated naturally — it was “highly unlikely” that more than one of the eggs would be fertilized.
“We won’t know anything for sure until we do a sonogram,” Dr. H. tried to reassure me. “And a third of the time, one of the twins vanishes anyway. So it’s too early to tell. But you’re pregnant — that’s the important thing…. Congratulations.” It came out sounding like an admonition.
Or perhaps he was opposed to abortion and trying to steer me away from the procedure known as “selective reduction,” in which one or more fetuses in a multiple pregnancy is terminated. I had no way of knowing.
I hope he was opposed to abortion.
It happened to be my husband’s and my anniversary. We’d been together long enough that we didn’t feel obliged to mark the occasion with flowers or candlelit dinners, but as he walked in the door that night, the timing suddenly seemed serendipitous. “Happy anniversary!” I said, pressing my lips to his. “I’m sorry I didn’t get you anything. Oh, there is this one little thing….” I stared coyly up into his face.
He lifted his eyebrows. “You’re pregnant?”
I nodded, but already my choice of words, “one little thing,” rang ominously in my ears. I trapped my bottom lip between my teeth. “Apparently my levels are high. He thinks it might be twins.”
My husband pulled back from me with the abruptness of someone who’s just learned he’s been betrayed. “Bettina, we can’t handle twins,” he said firmly.
“Well, we could if we had to. People have a toddler and twins all the time.”
“I told you when you started all this that I didn’t want twins.”
What about adoption instead of selective reduction (i.e., abortion)? This option was not even mentioned in the article. It reminds me of the deadly pride and selfishness of a boyfriend of a Care Net client I spoke to. He was pushing for abortion. When I raised the possibility of adoption, this “macho” guy got serious and said, “There’s no way I’m going to let someone else raise my kid.” Uh, yeah, but you’ll pay someone to kill her?
I nodded. He had said that. Unlike me, he’d been reluctant to have a second child. Our son was everything we could’ve wished for — funny, smart, a source of regular joy. As he got older, our lives got easier.
We took trips and found time for exercise and going to movies; we even had space in our two-bedroom apartment for guests. But at that moment, I didn’t want to hear any of that. I’d always wanted two children, and I countered with my best argument: Preserving our lifestyle seemed like a self-centered reason to deprive our son of a sibling.
Sadly and ironically, she will destroy one of his siblings to preserve their lifestyle.
Selective reduction had been my contingency plan, yet I’d never thought — or felt — through actually using it. I didn’t even know how the procedure was done. Now I was horrified at the idea of terminating one of the fetuses growing inside me by injecting potassium chloride into his or her heart.
Yes, that is horrifying.
With my son, I’d witnessed the step-by-step progress from blip to eight-pound, two-ounce boy, marveling at the increasingly recognizable sonogram images, poring over the weekly e-mail announcements from a pregnancy website: Your baby now has fingernails, your baby is now the size of a lemon, a banana, a melon. … And while I strongly believed in women’s right to have an abortion, the unlucky fetus destined for elimination wasn’t merely an abstract potential life, or an accident.
He or she was the product of my love for my husband, a life we’d made together on purpose. This fetus had an identity, not least as someone’s twin. “Selective reduction” was Orwellian; I knew I was ending what could be a life.
I also worried that the surviving child would be scarred by the loss. Perhaps the fetus would register the cessation of the heartbeat in the neighboring sac, the stilling of the fluttery movements.
Bizarre. She doesn’t even know which one to kill yet, and is worried about the survivor’s reaction. But if she isn’t a life yet, that makes no sense.
Could the proximity of decaying fetal tissue infuse my womb with the specter of death? If the chosen one ended up with mental illness or autism, would I always blame myself for having a reduction? All this may seem melodramatic, but I’ve heard about identical twins holding hands in utero; I’ve seen the secret language and private reality shared between even fraternal twins.
. . .
“But neither of us even likes our brothers and sisters that much,” my husband persisted. In fact, if it weren’t for the affection between our son and his cousins, he went on, we’d rarely see our siblings.
. . . .
During my weekly visits to Dr. H.’s office over the next month, I watched the two little sacs on the sonogram darken and grow, develop heartbeats and vaguely human outlines. “Can you turn the screen away, please?” I asked, tears pooling in the corners of my eyes. “I don’t want to get attached.”
. . .
My husband was convinced that twins would radically change our lives for the worse. We’d have to leave our beloved neighborhood for a place with cheaper rents and better public schools — there was no way we could afford private education for three kids.
Meditate on that, folks: They think it is better to kill one child than to have to send them all to public schools. The pro-teacher union / pro-abortion folks must be tied up in knots over that one!
We’d kiss goodbye any hope of career advancement, at least for the foreseeable future. To his list, I added the loss of my income, necessary to meet our expenses. I couldn’t see how I’d be able to resume working after the birth since we could never afford full-time help, and — no matter how well they napped — two infants wouldn’t leave much time for anything else.
Trot out the toddler time: Could they kill any child outside the womb for those reasons? Of course not. So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”
My husband told me he’d support whatever choice I made, but for him, there really was no choice. Our twins weren’t part of God’s plan, he reasoned (or rationalized?). They were the product of artificial insemination.
Yeah, they are all about following God’s plan here.
If we’d become pregnant with twins naturally, would we be making the same decision? I didn’t know. All I knew was that ultimately, I didn’t think we could have twins and remain an intact, happy-enough family.
Boo-hoo. Seriously. Has this lady ever stepped out of her Liberal enclaves to see the rest of the world? People endure far more than she could dream of, and many do it with much more joy.
After another stretch of silence, I asked, “Could you say a prayer when they’re doing it?”
He glanced at me, looking slightly surprised. “Sure. Of course.” Neither of us is very religious, but I wanted God to know that he or she, or whatever form God took, hadn’t been forgotten.
I hope they learn to think more carefully about God. It is their only chance at true joy and forgiveness. I doubt this marriage lasts very long after this.
Our doctor told us that she’d take into account any gender preference if the CVS determined that both babies were equally healthy. Now as she examined the ultrasound, she asked whether gender mattered to us. “Well, we have a boy at home, so I guess we’d prefer a girl,” I said, realizing with a start that since she gave us a choice, I must be carrying a boy and a girl, and I’d just chosen to terminate a boy.
One of the rare gender selection abortions that destroys a male. Usually this “pro woman” practice results in dead females.
What a sad story. I hope they find forgiveness and peace someday. And I hope this cautionary tale makes people think more carefully about IVF and reproductive issues in general. You do not want to put yourself in a position of having to make life and death choices like that. And if you do, choose life. Don’t buy into their bleak worldview.
The State of Illinois refused to let citizens purchase the “Adopt — Choose life” license plate. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. I don’t know the legal particulars, but I am disappointed at just how transparently pro-abortion the “pro-choice” groups are in Illinois. If they are really pro-choice, why wouldn’t they be glad to see those license plates out there? The license plates concede that there is a legal choice and simply encourage people to consider a choice other than abortion.
More fossil marketing— “Ardi” is just (bad) capitalism in action. The Ida fossil, while a truly spectacular find, turned out to be an overblown embarrassment with respect to the “missing link” schtick. It had a very effective marketing approach that earned some people big $$ before everyone realized how over-hyped it was.
Oh, and of course, macro-evolution is totally as well documented as gravity, even though they keep finding “missing” links (I didn’t know gravity had missing links, but hey, I’m not a scientist.).
Absolutely amazing, even for the grossly biased mainstream media: CNN criticized SNL for a skit about Obama! But hey, I remember them fact-checking all the Palin skits as well . . . or do I? At least the White House was smart enough not to comment.