Negative reactions continue to pour in about Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) decision to endorse same-sex marriage, having changed his opinion because his son, Will, is gay. In addition to Bryan Fischer’s claim that being gay is comparable to robbing a bank and CPAC attendees’ claims that the golden rule doesn’t apply to homosexuality, several other groups and individuals have specifically targeted Will in their responses to his father’s new position. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins applauded Portman’s love for his son, but condemned Will’s “choices,” which are “harmful” both to him and to “society as a whole”:

PERKINS: I commend Senator Portman for his unconditional love for his son.  Regardless of a child’s choices, the love of a parent can and should be a guiding beacon in the lives of their sons and daughters.  Unconditional love, however, does not mean unconditional support in choices that are both harmful to them and society as a whole.  This is especially true when we approach public policy.  Our unconditional love for our children should not override the historical and social science evidence which makes abundantly clear what is best for all children and for society – being raised by a married mother and father.

Conservative Baptist minister William Murray went even further in a statement released through his Government Is Not God PAC, calling on Portman to subject Will to ex-gay therapy before he dies from AIDS:

Portman has conveniently ignored the warnings against the sin of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments – and is accepting a behavior that may eventually kill his son from AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, or oral cancer. [...]

What sort of core values motivate a U.S. Senator to change his mind about a sexually destructive behavior simply because his son is involved in it? What will happen to Rob Portman’s belief system when he discovers that his son is infected with HIV or throat cancer?

A person with a same-sex attraction has a treatable condition. No one is “born gay” and there is hope for those who want to overcome these destructive behaviors.

In his original statement, Portman admirably noted that his son’s sexual orientation was not a choice.

Read more

Marriage equality became law today for the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians in Michigan when Chairman Dennis McNamara signed a new marriage equality measure passed by the tribal council on March 3^rd. Not only did he sign the bill, but McNamara then presided over the wedding of two of his longtime friends who met three decades ago in the Navy.  The Chairman told the Associated Press:

MCNAMARA: There should not be a dividing line, and we should all be able to seek a good life.

Unfortunately, those who will now be able to marry through the Little Traverse system still face legal questions in the state of Michigan due to a constitutional ban on gay marriage in the state.  Though the Tribe has the sovereign authority to enact its own marriage laws, it is unlikely that the state will recognize them.

Bryan Fisher, Director of Issues Analysis for the right-wing American Family Association, not only derided the tribe’s decision, but went a step further to prescribe their cultural values to the tribe:

FISCHER: We think it would be a serious mistake for any sovereign nation to legalize same sex marriage…Homosexual behavior itself is immoral, it is unnatural and it is unhealthy, and it is a mistake for any culture to normalize that kind of behavior.

Two other Tribal nations have legalized same-sex marriage, the Coquille Tribe in Oregon, and the Suquamish Tribe in Washington.  And, the LGBT legal equality movement is growing with the launch of a new Tribal equality toolkit, now being shared with interested tribal leaders.

Our guest blogger is Erik Stegman, Manager for the Half in Ten campaign at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) decision to support marriage equality was not warmly received at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday.

ThinkProgress spoke with 10 attendees about the Ohio Senator’s announcement this week that he was reversing course and backing marriage equality after his own son came out of the closet. Every person we spoke with opposed same-sex marriage, and many had harsh words for Portman.

“Horrible!” said Tony Mele, an 88-year-old woman from New Jersey, of Portman’s decision. When told he did so because of his gay son, she responded, “That’s his fault! He gets no sympathy from me.” A pastor from Georgia, William Temple, told Portman to “quit being so selfish as to only think about his son,” and if he won’t reverse himself, “to step down and go home.” Another pastor, Rev. Robert Lancia, dismissed Portman’s point that we should treat each other according to the Golden Rule: “That doesn’t cover it.” One man, David Kern, even said Portman’s son’s choice of college turned him gay. “Well what did Sen. Portman expect when he sent his son to Yale?”

Watch it:

LGBT rights have been a hot topic at CPAC after conference organizers barred two conservative groups, GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, from attending because of their pro-tolerance views.

On Thursday, the National Organization for Marriage posted some “important announcements” about its upcoming march against marriage equality targeting the Supreme Court. Among the many new guests booked for the accompanying rally was The Lee Boys, an African-American sacred steel ensemble that was to perform. (“Sacred steel” is a unique form of Gospel music with a hard-driving, blues-based beat, according to the group’s page.) It seems, though, that The Lee Boys were not familiar with NOM’s positions or its race-wedging tactics, because the group has confirmed that it has now dropped out:

Thanks for the info, we really didn’t know. And we would never want to hurt anyone… We’re not playing the show…

They also told Jeremy Hooper that “music is about love” and the band “would never want to offend.”

The group is still displayed on NOM’s blog, which is featured on the march’s site.

Here’s The Lee Boys encouraging fans to “smile for a brand new day,” which it certainly will be if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality:

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer is not thrilled by Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) announcement that he now supports marriage equality because of what he has learned from his son being gay. Fischer explained that just because a child is something doesn’t mean a parent should support it. His comparison? Robbing a bank:

While a story like this naturally stirs our emotions with sympathy for the family, and even fear for the future of his son, we still must ask the question as to whether such a revelation should be a basis to change our collective mind about the cornerstone institution of Western Civilization. The answer to this question must surely be “No.”

Public policy should be based on reason, not emotion. If it turned out my son was a bank robber, I would not love my son any less. I might even have great sympathy for the circumstances that drove him to steal. I would come alongside him and help him in any way that was in my power. But I would not change my mind about the morality of bank robbing.

Fischer noticeably avoids addressing Portman’s son directly. Indeed, conservatives regularly ignore the reality of the lives LGBT people are already living in favor of ideals and and principles that they apply without regard for consequence. Bank robbers go to prison, and apparently that’s exactly where Fischer believes Portman’s son belongs.

This week, the National Organization for Marriage’s John Eastman explained that adoption is the “second best” option for children when heterosexual couples can’t biologically have children of their own, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who adopted two children with his wife. The comment echoes an argument made in the Defense of Marriage Case that biological parents have a unique stake in the success of their children, and thus same-sex children do not deserve marriage. At CPAC Thursday, the Washington Blade asked Brian Brown if he agrees with Eastman’s statement, and Brown did his best to deflect without dissenting:

BROWN: Well, the reality is that on any indicator we’ve been able to measure since the explosion and the break down of the family from the 60s to the present is that children do best with both their mother and father. Obviously, we need to encourage adoption, we need do everything we can to help single motherhood. [...]

It’s entirely different when you put into the law the notion that either mothers or fathers are completely expendable. And that, at it’s nature, is what same-sex marriage is all about: two moms or two dads are essentially the same as a mother and a father. That is not the case. Children have rights, too. Children have a right to have a chance to have both a mother and a father.

Though Brown omitted the word “biological” from his answer, the word “their” is key for distinguishing biological children from children adopted by (other) parents. It’s not difficult to assert this is Brown’s position because he’s made the point before — notably in his dinner-table debate with Dan Savage:

BROWN: The notion—the simplistic notion that because parenthood is connected with marriage—because marriage is that institution by which society connects children to their biological mothers and fathers—the simplistic idea that somehow that means what we’re saying is that every single person has to have a child—that’s silly. We never claim that. Marriage is the institution that does this… Marriage is the institution that connects that child to both their mother and father, and that’s why the state is interested in marriage. Because marriage is the institution that allows children to know both their mother and father.

Of course, NOM’s Jennifer Roback Morse also repeatedly makes this anti-adoption claim. Whether she’s endorsing child kidnapping from same-sex couples or calling for the imprisonment of lesbians who buy sperm on craigslist, her argument remains that somehow the biological connection between parent and child takes precedence. Of course, there is no evidence to support this notion.

This line of reasoning seems to stem from a post-hoc attempt to rationalize inequality in ways that don’t sound blatantly discriminatory. Rather than admitting that DOMA and Proposition 8 were intended to target gays and lesbians, conservatives invented the idea that marriage should be reserved for straight couples because it “promotes procreation.” When confronted with the counterargument that straight couples who cannot conceive are still allowed to get married, they had to invent yet another new argument: that the biological connection with children is still preferential. They knew that nobody would interpret that to mean that all adoption should be banned, even though that’s the implication. In fact, the argument only works with the assumption that same-sex parenting is still worse than opposite-sex parenting, even though to make that case they’ve now offended every adoptive parent, every foster parent, and every parent who has ever used a surrogate, a sperm donor, or other fertility treatment to have a child.

Hopefully both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who also adopted, appreciate that same-sex parents are just as capable of loving a child without a direct biological link as they’ve been able to love their own.

During an interview with Mike Allen for Politico’s Playbook Cocktails, billionaire Bill Gates described some of the things he learned as a Boy Scout, then made it clear that the organization should lift the ban on gay Scouts and leaders. He didn’t feel the need to offer much explanation for his point of view:

ALLEN: Should the Boy Scouts of America rescind its ban on gay members and leaders?

GATES: Absolutely.

ALLEN: …Why?

GATES: Because it’s 2013.

Watch it:

Gates has proven himself to be a generous ally to the LGBT community, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars from his Microsoft fortune toward last year’s marriage equality fight in Washington state.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has reversed his position on gay marriage, becoming the only sitting Republican senator to support marriage equality. The senator was a top contender to become Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate last year. As he explained to several Ohio newspapers, Portman was inspired by his son Will, who came out in February of 2011.

In a Columbus Dispatch op-ed, Portman explains how he struggled with his faith and his desire for his son to have the same opportunities his other children have:

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.

That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.

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.

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.

Portman elaborated on his evolution to CNN’s Dana Bash:

Portman’s previous stance on marriage equality was termed “openly hostile” by Michigan Law students who protested his commencement speech just two months after his son privately came out. One hundred students reportedly walked out of the speech. In June 2012, he still opposed the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, explaining to ThinkProgress that businesses should be able to fire gay people without fear of legal action.

During the vetting process for GOP vice presidential candidate, Portman says he told Romney “everything” about his son and claims that the campaign assured him that his son’s orientation was not the reason why he was not selected.
Read more