His change of view seems to me to be driven by a very self-absorbed grasp of human experience, especially for someone who is a longtime leader of people. This suggests to me how insulated Gov. Portman's thinking has been. It is sad that it takes his own son coming out to prompt a reversal, no matter what one thinks of that change.
I believe gay couples deserve all rights, just wish we would stop calling it "marriage." I don't want to limit rights to couples who have and want to better realize a for-real, healthy relationship (tragically, discouragement of good relationships is pervasive in culture and social practices now already, IMO). But I also recognize a very valid, blatantly man-woman, tradition of what the "institution of marriage" is, simply. Not simply my marriage, but the concept, the institution, of marriage.
I am not "afraid of gay people destroying my marriage" or some idiocy, I am not eager to further twist and water down and blur the traditional idea of marriage. This is another step in the feckless blurring of social values into nothing but suggestions, like parenting, self-dependence, humility, respect and other ideals are lost to too many now, it seems. I think it's too bad that some folks who promote gay marriage attack the very institution -- it is out of some base form of spite some behave in demanding this "right" -- ironic were it not that such cases the rhetoric is actually childishly cynical, ironic only in its lack of logic. (I have seen this on several occasions, and had such vitriol put to me. This is some of the rhetoric from those who are excessive social liberals.)
I hold great value in the meanings and purposes of words. They not only have broad meanings, but cultural, social, historical, religious, and contextual meanings, and "gay marriage" stomps upon the tradition. It's crass to insist it be "marriage." At the heart of my resistance is that I don't want more watering down of meaning, like liberals are so damned good at doing. I want to preserve and establish rights, but am sick of seeing liberals (socially, sexually liberal thinkers) stomping on traditions for what seems mostly self-interest or feel-good measures.
It's a shame that the concept of civil unions was fought. In France, and probably other places (I don't recall), anyone can have a civil union. That's brilliant. But that's not good enough here in the States, somehow. And that is too bad.
- Jon O