Rob Portman’s Left Turn and Washington’s Problem

Published on March 25, 2013

by R.G. Yoho

MUTCD_R3-2.svgAs a native-born West Virginian living in Ohio, I have sadly grown accustomed to being represented by self-serving political hacks who obviously know more about politics than they do about the unchanging principles of statesmanship.

I find it even more disturbing when they routinely spout off nonsensical ideas like their pronouncements are truly great nuggets of wisdom. And equally disturbing is the fact that these proclamations of stupidity are often presented as infallible proofs of enlightenment.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is when this lunacy is committed by those claiming to be Conservative.

Such was recently the case when Senator Rob Portman (R.-OH) betrayed his loyal constituents and his many years of unqualified support of traditional marriage.

Upon learning that his own son was gay, Sen. Portman declared that he’s now had a change of heart and will no longer endorse legislation which upholds the standard of traditional marriage.

Isn’t that nice?

And enlightened?

So now that Sen. Portman’s son is gay, the senator has altered his long-held beliefs.

Where does that stop?

What if his son committed a murder? Would Portman change his opinion on capital punishment?

What if his son held up a liquor store? Would the senator reconsider his belief in Ohio’s felony code?
Moral values are something that should be passed along from fathers to sons, not the other way around. Moreover, they are not to be altered by the actions of our children.

The love a father has for his children isn’t truly compromised by his strong and determined commitment to an established set of moral absolutes.

But perhaps that is the problem with Rob Portman and too many of his colleagues in Washington:They have no moral absolutes. They have no core beliefs. They embrace no unchanging principles.

Portman’s change of heart certainly isn’t a case of moral conversion; it’s a case of moral abandonment. Perhaps it’s simply an immoral act of political expediency.

In a related statement, Sen. Portman declared, “All of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.”

Let’s consider his statement for a minute.

All of our sons and daughters — does the senator really mean that? And where does it stop?

If society removes all defense of traditional marriage, then what else will fall under the feet of moral abandonment?

If same-sex marriage gains a foothold nationwide, then what legal precedent will keep all of our sons and daughters from legislating any concept of marriage their imaginations can create?

The pedophiles of NAMBLA are already waiting in the wings to make the case that their “rights” and relationships should be equally recognized by society. And why should marriage only be limited to two people? Perhaps those who practice polygamy in secret should no longer be pushed to the fringes of society.

The legalization of same-sex marriage isn’t society’s acceptance of the practice; it’s an endorsement.

Despite Sen. Portman’s recent change of heart, traditional marriage has always been a bedrock of our society, a foundation that cannot be eliminated without the dissolution of America.

And this issue is a slippery slope that our country certainly doesn’t need to cross, now or ever.

get-attachment (2)R.G. Yoho is a writer and author of six books