Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Cultural elites are very excited about the announcement from U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) that he believes the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. His reasoning? Well, he says, his 21-year-old son is gay.
Sample headline and lede from the Columbus Dispatch:
Rob Portman reverses stance on gay marriage, says son is gay
WASHINGTON — Sen. Rob Portman has renounced his opposition to gay marriage, telling reporters from Ohio newspapers yesterday that he changed his position after his son Will told him and his wife, Jane, that he is gay.
Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn't be changed -- but it shouldn't hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator's son, should it?
What if a conservative senator said, "I'm reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren't."
One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It's the Oprahfication of political philosophy.
Should a conservative determine good policy this way?
- Comment (152)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (38)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Absolutely not Molly.
I understand Sen Portman's compassion for his son's choices and his willingness to publicly display this commitment by realigning his stance on same sex marriage but it raises concerns on what other positions he may change in the future if some other loved one comes to him with a similar issue like your example of abortion.
If his loved one defaulted on their mortgage, their student loan or the like would he then change his stance on bailouts?
One wonders if portraying Obama in all of those pre-debate prep sessions has caused this "evolution" on the issue.
Jan '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
It's very hard to look someone you love more than life itself in the eyes and tell them "I love you, but I am unwilling to give you the thing you want most. You are probably going to hate me, and your friends will tell you that I certainly must hate who you have become, but this rapidly decaying moral principle is too important. I'm sorry son."
So much of the debate around gender politics - both women's and LGBTQ issues - is defined by the fact that political stances tend to be drawn along demographic lines. This makes it easy for a member of a demographic group to leverage their membership in that group to political ends. "I'm an X, and as an X feel that policy Y discriminates against me." This line of argumentation immediately puts the burden of proof - both logically and emotionally - on the non-X proponents of policy Y, as is right and proper. It also makes it VERY hard for people like Sen. Portman and Vice President Cheney, who are confronted with this type of argument every time they look at their families, to hold an anti-LGBT stance.
Jan '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
This also goes to show that, in the finest Burkean tradition, conservatives are beginning to realize that when forced to choose between abstract principle and the messy exigencies of life, compromise and reevaluation is often the most pragmatic choice.
Jul '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
While not the best way to determine policy, it sure helps to understand perspective when you walk a mile in another person's shoes. I would be far far more upset at a choice to kill a baby than if one of my kids told me they were gay. I would give that gay child all the love and support in the world but expect them to behave in a moral fashion. No this does not mean living a lie or being celibate but it means not sleeping around indiscriminately or anything even close to that. I would be far more upset in my child told me they liked Obama and were working on his re-election campaign.
PS, my first boy graduated high school a virgin and soon the second will. Both are quite good looking, heterosexual, and have had their chances.
Oct '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
This is kinda ironic, because Rob Portman spoke at my law school commencement, and a third of the students staged a walk-out to protest his support of DOMA. Of course, villain Eric Holder's commencement address the next year received nothing but applause.
Conor Friedersdorf has written in the past about how a personal connection often leads a person change his/her views on gay marriage, and it seems the case for Portman. Here's a little more from Portman:
Assuming he's genuine, it sounds like he just never realized the policy implications of what he supported. Selectively, basing policy off personal experiences is problematic, but on the whole I think we could use more politicians that realize the impact of their decisions.
Edited on March 15, 2013 at 7:12amOct '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
I thought Oprahfication meant rapidly adding 200 pounds to something.
Sep '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
I have said to my children once or twice, "I don't change my moral beliefs even for you." They are good people and I haven't had to say it too often, but that's how it is. Yes, he should love and support his son in appropriate ways, but it doesn't change the underlying reasons for retaining the structure of marriage. Would he join Occupy Wall Street if he had a homeless son? Hello! That's how the left behaves. It's all about "how I feel."
Oct '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
When I was in college, one my high school classmates was killed by an IED in Iraq while serving in the National Guard. He wasn't a friend or anything, but I knew him - he was a nice, quiet farm kid that joined the Guard for some extra money and to stay near home. I've known my entire life that human life is precious, that war is hell, and that most soldiers are good guys, and yet my support for the war fell considerably after his death and the reactions back home (granted, I was pretty young at the time). I was always irritated that my parents didn't want me joining the Marines, yet had no problem sending other parents' kids over, but apparently I was just as willing to live removed (not saying war supporters are necessarily detached, or that this is analogous to gay marriage).
On the flip side, it would be nice if we heard more Road-to-Damascus stories from progressives listening to testimonies of defenseless rape victims in gun-controlled Chicago. It's been slowly happening with some issues, like school choice, but not nearly fast enough.
Edited on March 15, 2013 at 8:38amSep '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Is it odd how many people on Ricochet think that morality is completely relative-- that appetite is the arbiter of right and wrong?It's completely sensible that progressives believe that goodness = what comes next--that moral laws aren't fixed but are fluid and evolving. That's in keeping with their core beliefs. But I'm a little surprised to hear conservatives suggest that rightness should submit to appetite instead of appetite submitting to rightness. It used to be considered a bit of immaturity to insist that the phrase "what's right" is only another way to say "what's mine."Please tell me the ego is not the new American moral compass.
Apr '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Having three children myself and finding us diametrically opposed in the definition of marriage it has led to being confronted by each of them at one time or another with the same dilemma that Sen Portman has faced: how would our relationship change if I came to you and admitted.....
I can humbly admit that I have not been faced with the same heart wrenching upheaval to ones convictions that Sen Portman was but having been confronted recently with a similar one by my youngest daughter, where a fathers emotions can run high and deep, it caused a deep rift that took much pain and anguish to resolve.
It broke my heart to take a stand that I know was viewed as primarily unloving and old fashioned but knew from my own past that making choices merely from the heart only can lead to greater pain and suffering then just being misunderstood and rejected.
May '10
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
I used to think the right way to form an opinion was by using reason and relying on the inherited wisdom of of Western civilization. Then I met a friend who forms opinions based on his own exceptional circumstances.
Because this person is my friend, I have changed my mind, and now I believe personal exceptional circumstances are the right basis for opinions.
Dec '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
TMI.
Spare me the personal details. Dick Cheney managed to keep his private family business pretty private; why can't Portman?
May '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Very disappointed in Sen Portman if that's his only reason for changing his view of so-called gay marriage.
It's an example of a very shallow mindset which I thought ( hoped ? ) was confined mostly to lefties. If his son had robbed a bank for example, would he change his view on whether armed robbery should be illegal ?
Any law or government policy is going to inconvenience someone in some way. Deciding policy solely on the basis of whether it suits your own particular circumstances, or those of your friends and relatives is always wrong. Hard to avoid of course, since that's just human nature, but I wish more people could take a more objective view of right and wrong.
Edited on March 15, 2013 at 8:17amAug '10
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
It's entirely possible to completely accept the homosexuality of one's child, without deciding that everyone in the world has to start thinking of that child's relationship with his lover as a marriage.
As I say until I'm blue in the face, this is not about letting homosexuals do anything, it's about requiring everyone else to do something.
Aug '10
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Rob Portman always struck me as filled with boundless admiration for Rob Portman. And now he thinks that everyone else who shares this admiration will follow him in his about-face on gay marriage. I don't think he deserves admiration, I think he deserves to be booted into the Democratic party, where he's always belonged.
Apr '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It's the Oprahfication of political philosophy.
Should a conservative determine good policy this way?
Well, Mollie, you obviously know the answer.
I wouldn't exactly agree that this phenomena is "fascinating," as much as it is symptomatic.
If logic hadn't long ago been removed from the curriculum, you'd hardly need to point out the above to anyone.
Even if most school kids could just recite a list of logical fallacies, formal or informal, then Oprah would have only amounted to "that actress from The Color Purple."
Marriage is far older than American law. It's probably much older than law, itself. Law never attempted to define marriage, merely to support the existing institution.
It would be fantastic arrogance to define it.
Portman's son isn't denied any rights. He can get married anytime he wants. However, he needs to marry a female if he wants his "marriage" to be recognized.
No injury.
Logic.
Jan '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Paul DeRocco
It's entirely possible to completely accept the homosexuality of one's child, without deciding that everyone in the world has to start thinking of that child's relationship with his lover as a marriage.
As I say until I'm blue in the face, this is notabout letting homosexuals do anything, it's about requiring everyone else to do something. · 34 minutes ago
Unfortunately acceptance isn't a one-way street - relationships are built on give and take. It's very easy to look at a just-out-of-the-closet child and say to them:
"It's okay, I still love you; you are still my wonderful sweet child."
What happens when they say:
"Fantastic, mom/dad. I knew I could count on you. It's just that I'm madly in love with this other person. I want to have with them what you and dad/mom have with each other. I need you to support me in this; I need you to help me marry them." What happens then? We seem to have a lot of comparative hardliners here; but I couldn't just shut down my child in the name of principle.
Jan '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Neolibertarian
Marriage is far older than American law. It's probably much older than law, itself. Law never attempted to define marriage, merely to support the existing institution.
It would be fantastic arrogance todefineit.
Portman's son isn't denied any rights. He can get married anytime he wants. However, he needs to marry a female if he wants his "marriage" to be recognized.
No injury.
Logic. · 17 minutes ago
The problem is that the U.S. code has already gone to fantastic lengths to "define" marriage, and right now those definitions provide a long, long list of benefits to heterosexual couples that, as of right now, homosexual and other non-traditional family groupings do not receive. You can claim that injury is just or necessary because the institution of heterosexual marriage is somehow special, and ought to be privileged. But you can't deny that there is a material asymmetry in existence.
Nov '11
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Was Portman Jr. cool with Portman outing him like that in such a public way?
Oct '12
Re: Marriage Law and the Oprahfication of Politics
Taliesin
"Fantastic, mom/dad. I knew I could count on you. It's just that I'm madly in love with this other person. I want to have with them what you and dad/mom have with each other. I need you to support me in this; I need you to help me marry them."
"Son, I'd love for you to have what I have with your mother, but the only way to do it is by marrying a woman. I'd be lying to you if I pretended otherwise, and I won't lie to you, even if I think it would make you feel good (in the short term). For starters, the most important thing your mother and I have together is you, our children, which you obviously can't have with a man. The physical fruitfulness of our marriage is a good in itself, but it is also a sign of our deep sexual complementarity that goes well beyond the physical down into the deep recesses of our being; we have indeed become one flesh in a way two men never can, no matter how they feel about each other or what you call it. Sorry."