Boehner: "I can't imagine" supporting a gay son's marriage

[T-Rexx]

John Boehner was interviewed today by ABC's Martha Raddatz. She asked Boehner if he had spoken to his fellow Ohioan, Sen. Rob Portman, about the latter's change of heart on gay marriage. Boehner said he had. Raddatz asked Boehner if he could imagine changing his own views on gay marriage, if he should ever find himself in a situation similar to Portman's.

Boehner said no, he could not imagine changing his opposition to gay marriage, even to support a gay son.

“I believe that marriage is the union of one man, one woman. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what I believe, it’s what my church teaches me.”

“And I can’t imagine that position would ever change.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...sons-marriage/

[Lestatnj]

I really think the MSM need to start to start to address this bigotry. On another msg bd, a poster said that the perfect rebuke to Rep Orange Face would have been "so, Mr Speaker, no unconditional love for your kids, huh?"

[chrisrobin]

I really think the MSM need to start to start to address this bigotry. On another msg bd, a poster said that the perfect rebuke to Rep Orange Face would have been "so, Mr Speaker, no unconditional love for your kids, huh?"

Excellent question. Some Catholic!



There is a book. (There's always a book):



Mr. Ney describes The Boner as a "chain-smoking womanizing drunk."

[loki81]

John Boehner is against gay marriage?

wow, that's pretty surprising news.

or something.

[CowboyBob]

Mr. Ney describes The Boner as a "chain-smoking womanizing drunk."

Is that the reason for his instability? He's drunk all the time or he has serious emotional and mental problems or both. Boehner should not be "Weeper of the House".

I'm sure the reason for his statement was to appease the far right wing of his political party.

John Boehner is against gay marriage?

wow, that's pretty surprising news.

or something.

Why do you do that?

[JayHawk]

Is that the reason for his instability? He's drunk all the time or he has serious emotional and mental problems or both. Boehner should not be "Weeper of the House".

I'm sure the reason for his statement was to appease the far right wing of his political party.



Why do you do that?

I think he does that becuase it is the same thing as rehashing watergate in the other thread.... pointless.

Why not point out that Portman was a integral part of the party for the last election, he has standing and he is not going anywhere. AND his view changed because of reality. That is awesome and bodes well for us. Banging on Boehner wont gain a damn thing but embracing Portman's change of tone while pointing out that it is awesome he has reversed himself on a bigitted opinion will go much further in convincing folks. Thats juts my opinion... but between Sherrod Brown and Portman my home state has a good outlook for Senatorial support for gay marriage.

[JayHawk]

p.s. the part where Boehner has tried to please his party and got no where and so therefore crossed them and threw out the Hastert rule is promising. If I believe anything in the Woodward report it is that Boehner has his party to please but I am sure he wants to govern and do so as a coalition and not by decapitating government programs. We will see if he splits from party sooner this time around. I sure hope he does and we get out of this perpetual cycle of emergency.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Changing his mind on gay marriage would actually involve emotions, and Boehner only cries when he doesn't get his way or wants a good photo op. All those tanning chemicals leached into his brain and ate away at the parts of his brain that control empathy.

[Ninja108]

And this is why,for all the bashing Portman's gotten,he is standing behind his son and giving him love. There are still far too many "parents" like Boehner who will put the Bible,Torah etc above their children.
Saw a special on conversion camps the other night and it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. You had one mother saying being gay was worse then being a terrorist and another set of parents who didn't care their son had been harming himself because of their rejection of his sexuality. And they both pulled out the Adam & Eve garbage. Truly sad and angering at the same time.
I've known people who haven't spoken to their parents in a decade or more becuase of what their religious beliefs are. They aren't going to change and neither are people like Boehner.

[crimsonpaine]

Boehner is a fool, and always has been. I put him in the same boat as DeLay; asshats! Marriage is not about men and women, it's about two people, whether is be a man and woman, or man and man or woman and woman who want to be married for whatever reason, be it love, or for financial security or other commitment. It's not about religion. If God didn't want two men or two women to fall in love, then don't you think God wouldn't have allowed it? Boehner needs to be removed as Speaker.

[CowboyBob]

It used to be one of the right wing's reasonings against gay marriage is because two men or two women can't procreate. That was blown out of the water when the subject of post menopausal women, men without testicles and other heterosexuals who can't procreate can get married. They shut up using those excuses real quick.

It's prejudice, pure and simple. And Boehner is indeed a fool along with most of the republican politicos.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

It used to be one of the right wing's reasonings against gay marriage is because two men or two women can't procreate. That was blown out of the water when the subject of post menopausal women, men without testicles and other heterosexuals who can't procreate can get married. They shut up using those excuses real quick.

It's prejudice, pure and simple. And Boehner is indeed a fool along with most of the republican politicos.

Most right-wingers try to justify their anti-gay bigotry using one (or all) of these 3 cop-outs:

1) Gays are bad because THE BIBLE says so! (Surely a book where snakes talk and people turn to salt can't be wrong!)

2) Gays have buttsex! (Obviously, straight people never stick it in the pooper. NEVER.)

3) Gays spread AIDS! (Just look at all those lesbians infected with AIDS! LOOK AT THEM! ALL 3 OF THEM!)

[Kulindahr]

Boehner and others need to find real churches to go to, churches that respect what Jesus had to say about government and church being separate -- or, more precisely, government and God.

And that's what the media should be explaining: that we have "leadership" who can't understand the simple fact that the same set of sounds -- what we call a "word" -- can have two different meanings in two different situations. That's simple enough to illustrate from everyday life: if your grandfather sits down in his living room after dinner with a snifter of brandy and a book, and asks you to hand him his pipe, do you really think he means what the plumber down the street means with the same request when on a service call? or how about the word "dish", when used by your aunt when she wants a container for peaches versus when used by the satellite television installation man putting in your new service?

THe list is long, of words where we take it for granted that different people in different situations mean entirely different things. It's about time the media started making the point that this isn't a philosophical disagreement, it's one of sixth-grade reading comprehension., and that what we need are representatives who are smarter than a fifth grader.

[chrisrobin]

Most right-wingers try to justify their anti-gay bigotry using one (or all) of these 3 cop-outs:

1) Gays are bad because THE BIBLE says so! (Surely a book where snakes talk and people turn to salt can't be wrong!)

2) Gays have buttsex! (Obviously, straight people never stick it in the pooper. NEVER.)

3) Gays spread AIDS! (Just look at all those lesbians infected with AIDS! LOOK AT THEM! ALL 3 OF THEM!)

Perhaps someone needs to be as confrontational with the Boner. Pres. Bartlet rocks!

[Sausy]

Boehner is an ass, and on the wrong side of history. Younger Republicans even when polled support marriage equality 2-1. Placate a far right who are out of touch and whose influence doesn't pervade the younger members of their party? For all the crap he's taken from skeptics on the left( and is getting by the haters on the right as well) Sen. Portman took a stand that was risky for where his party has regressed but for what he realizes is the right thing to do.... for his son and for all families with gay sons and daughters. Boehner is ignorant here, and cynically handing another "bone" to the right with his unmoved stance against marriage equality he's a callous bastard too. Fuck him.

[loki81]

Why do you do that?

seemed an appropriate way to express my confusion as to the point of this thread.

I mean, really? it's news that a Republican doesn't like gay people and does not support gay marriage?

[T-Rexx]

John Boehner is against gay marriage?

wow, that's pretty surprising news.

or something.

seemed an appropriate way to express my confusion as to the point of this thread.

I mean, really? it's news that a Republican doesn't like gay people and does not support gay marriage?

The news is NOT that John Boehner is opposed to gay marriage. It is that he is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage that he (thinks he) could not change his ideology even for a gay son. It is that he is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage that he cannot be persuaded by the experience of a friend and family close to him. It is that he is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds that he will not modify his thinking even if it is in the interest of his country.

That's significant because it suggests that Rob Portman-like defections from Republican Party doctrine may not have much influence on Republicans generally. There is something about Republicanism that lacks empathy. Moreover, the issue of gay marriage among Republicans does not seem to respond to argument, whteher based on reason or emotion.

It means we will not see Republicans support our cause until voters simply refuse to vote for them because of this single issue alone. I think that's a pretty important point. Sorry you missed it.

[Brian Smith]

Dear Mr. Boehner;

Your attitude toward your own (presumably hypothetical) son reminds me of that shown by Saudi Arabian families who murder their own daughters in "honor killings." This is the extreme of your own superficiality. They feel that, by getting a source of shame out of the picture, they can save face. It is a selfish attempt by a family to preserve its own image. Gay or lesbian children are turned-out into the cold for similar reasons. This kind of behavior is a common sight in societies that have no real sense of unity.

When parents turn their gay or lesbian children out into the cold, those children do not just disappear. They still have needs, and they still need someone to be there to finish rearing them. That's not society's job, but the parents of those children have proven that they are too lousy to take it upon themselves. We regard families that do this sort of thing as "white trash." They are people who are all too ready to push their own unwanted burdens off onto others.

And now I see that you have sworn that you would not support the civil equality of your own son. You would not want to acknowledge this source of shame in your life. You would rather he kept this aspect of his life entirely out of yours, so you could pretend it wasn't there.

If your son did not have a husband in his life, though, who would take care of him after he had grown too old to take care of himself? If your son did not have a husband, how many short-term partners do you think he would sleep with before he contracted a horrible illness, which he would then spread to others? Those burdens would fall on everyone else but you.

You don't care about these consequences that would impact the rest of your countrymen. In that, you not only demonstrate a lack of respect toward your son, but you also demonstrate a lack of respect toward your countrymen. Most of us would not have cared if you had a gay son, but we do notice if your own failures as a father overflow into other people's space.

Your failures are overflowing into my space for every young gay man who comes to me for consolation when his parents have scorned him. Your failures overflow into my space for every time I have to put a young man up for a few nights because his mom and dad threw him out. Your failures are a big problem for those of us who are inclined to take responsibility.

In morally backward parts of the world like Central Africa or Saudi Arabia, your attitude might fly. In the free world, though, you are a source of embarrassment. You are evidence of how backward we still are. You are evidence of how quickly the USA is falling from global relevance. You are a symptom of America's fall from grace...if not part of the cause.

What is most offensive to me, though, is that you don't stop to think about these kinds of things. In your self-absorbed, little world, all that matters is what might immediately impact your image. You are a shallow man. With your lack of depth, you might as well not even exist.

Mr. Boehner, you are an eye-sore. We would all be better off without you.

[CowboyBob]

seemed an appropriate way to express my confusion as to the point of this thread.

I mean, really? it's news that a Republican doesn't like gay people and does not support gay marriage?

Thanks for your response. We'll make sure to check topics with you before we post to ensure they're appropriate.

[loki81]

Thanks for your response. We'll make sure to check topics with you before we post to ensure they're appropriate.

or ignore my sarcastic comments, either works

[rareboy]

He is such a douche.

[andysayshi]

or ignore my sarcastic comments, either works

I got the gag, Loki. Some people don't read irony or sarcasm well. I get in trouble for it all the time.

[Kulindahr]

The news is NOT that John Boehner is opposed to gay marriage. It is that he is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage that he (thinks he) could not change his ideology even for a gay son. It is that he is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage that he cannot be persuaded by the experience of a friend and family close to him. It is that he is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds that he will not modify his thinking even if it is in the interest of his country.

That's significant because it suggests that Rob Portman-like defections from Republican Party doctrine may not have much influence on Republicans generally. There is something about Republicanism that lacks empathy. Moreover, the issue of gay marriage among Republicans does not seem to respond to argument, whteher based on reason or emotion.

His attitude is standard among those who at root believe that it's what they do that makes them righteous, and that they just be righteous at all costs. It's the same attitude that drove the Inquisition, fueling the practice of burning people at the stake for their own good. It's one that grabs onto the Bible's admonition that obedience is better than sacrifice, but ignores the one that mercy is better than obedience.

Jesus warned people about calling what is evil "good", but Boehner and Christians like him go ahead and do it anyway. They're so afraid of getting their souls "dirty" by giving the least impression that they might be condoning an "abomination" that they forget that they can't make their souls clean in the first place.

[chrisrobin]

His attitude is standard among those who at root believe that it's what they do that makes them righteous, and that they just be righteous at all costs. It's the same attitude that drove the Inquisition, fueling the practice of burning people at the stake for their own good. It's one that grabs onto the Bible's admonition that obedience is better than sacrifice, but ignores the one that mercy is better than obedience.

Jesus warned people about calling what is evil "good", but Boehner and Christians like him go ahead and do it anyway. They're so afraid of getting their souls "dirty" by giving the least impression that they might be condoning an "abomination" that they forget that they can't make their souls clean in the first place.

Communist! Socialist! Atheist! Anti-American!

[Ninja108]

Goldwater would be turning over in his grave.

[CowboyBob]

I got the gag, Loki. Some people don't read irony or sarcasm well. I get in trouble for it all the time.

And some people get tired of it when they do it all the time.

[loki81]

And some people get tired of it when they do it all the time.

really? tired of sarcasm? I never would have guessed.

[Kulindahr]

Communist! Socialist! Atheist! Anti-American!

He saw it coming long before the "Moral Majority".

[T-Rexx]

That's amazing! I did not know Goldwater ever said anything like that! Astounding insight.

"Politics and government demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise."

[Ninja108]

Indeed...today he would be a RINO. I have friends who are Republicians and they HATE the religious right almost as much as we do. They view it as something costing them elections in non bible belt states.

[CowboyBob]

What Goldwater said is true. Unfortunately the preachers he warned the country about have already taken control of the party. They were courted for their votes.

It's all happening right now. We're even seeing it in the forum.

[Ninja108]

And if you case to want to see some of the backlash he's gotten,simply go to his facebook page. It isn't pretty folks. Say what you will but he will face a primary challenge down the road.

[T-Rexx]

I have friends who are Republicians and they HATE the religious right almost as much as we do. They view it as something costing them elections in non bible belt states.

While there are, no doubt, Republicans who dislike the religious right, the fact remains that the religious right is most of who is the Republican Party today. I doubt that it is possible to separate the two. And, if you could, the two factions might not be very effective, politically, as separate entities.

I think we are stuck with a religious party as half of our elected representation in America for the indefinite future. Thanks, Ronnie Reagan.

[Kulindahr]

Indeed...today he would be a RINO. I have friends who are Republicians and they HATE the religious right almost as much as we do. They view it as something costing them elections in non bible belt states.

While there are, no doubt, Republicans who dislike the religious right, the fact remains that the religious right is most of who is the Republican Party today. I doubt that it is possible to separate the two.

I know a lot more people who would vote Republican but instead don't bother to register and vote, because they won't vote for a Democrat but they can't stand what many call "slimy preachers".

I sometimes wonder if going back in time and preventing Onward, Christian Soldiers! from ever getting written might make a difference....


http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh575.sht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward,_Christian_Soldiers

[Ninja108]

At some point,on a national level,you will see the Republicians stand up to the Religious Right. I do think it will take themlosing another election to do so though.

[Kulindahr]

At some point,on a national level,you will see the Republicians stand up to the Religious Right. I do think it will take themlosing another election to do so though.

The GOP isn't going to have the gumption to throw out the religious bigots until such time as they hold less than a third of the seats in one house of Congress and a useless minority in the other.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

At some point,on a national level,you will see the Republicians stand up to the Religious Right. I do think it will take themlosing another election to do so though.

That would actually involve self-reflection, and the GOP has demonstrated time and again that they aren't capable of it. Each time they've lost, instead of saying, "why are we losing voters?" they instead think, "we weren't conservative enough!" and then dial the derp to 11. (ie, "legitimate rape" and "birth certificate")

[T-Rexx]

Another Ohio politician has just joined Boehner in saying he would not support gay marriage, even for a gay son.

Ohio governor John Kasich (R) issued a very confusing statement today in which he said he spoke to Sen. Rob Portman and supported him and his son, but he could not support gay marriage under any circumstances. Kasich claimed to support civil unions (which are prohibited by a 2004 constitutional amendment) for gay couples as an alternative. He later retracted that statement, claiming he did not support either gay marriage or same sex civil unions. He claimed (absurdly) late in the day that gay couples could fashion contractual legal agreements between themselves which would be just as good as marriage.

Kasich was asked if he could imagine a situation that might cause him to change his position.

"I really can't see one, I mean, I talked to Rob and encouraged him," Kasich said. "If people want to have civil unions and have some way to transfer their resources, I'm for that. I don't support gay marriage. "

"I've got friends that are gay and I've told them 'Look, (same sex marriage) is just not something I agree with' and I'm not doing it out of a sense of anger or judgment, it's just my opinion on this issue. "

"I just think marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you want to have a civil union that's fine with me," Kasich said.

Kasich made the above statement this morning, but by this evening his spokesperson had retracted it. "He may have used the term 'civil union' loosely in this instance," said his spokesman, Rob Nichols. Nichols went on to claim that the governor "opposes discrimination against any Ohioan" even as he reported in the same sentence that the governor supports discrimination against Ohio gays.

Kasich is a former Wall Street banker. It is possible that he was not aware that the Ohio constitution prohibits civil unions, and that it was his own party which wrote that amendment in 2004. The nonsense about fashioning a legal contract between two individuals that would be equivalent to marriage may have been an attempt to save face.

In a single day, Kasich claimed to support gay civil unions, then not to support them. He claimed he "encouraged" Rob Portman" even as he discouraged his positions. And, he claimed to oppose discrimination against all Ohioans, even as he pointed out the importance of discriminating against Ohio gays. If you get the impression this guy is a weasel, you have no idea. My favorite line from today was "I've got friends that are gay..."

In any case, Kasich now claims to oppose both gay marriage and gay civil unions, and that he would not change that opinion, even for a gay son.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/oh...s-then-takes-i

[Rolyo85]

I am with Dan Savage on this - NONE of these douchenozzles have ANY gay friends. This is a lie. We should ask for those "gay friends"' emails, so that we can ask THEM whether they're ok with their Republican "friends"' opinions...

But frankly, I don't believe any of these assholes has ever been in any way friendly with any gay person in their lives.

[T-Rexx]

I am with Dan Savage on this - NONE of these douchenozzles have ANY gay friends. This is a lie.

I agree. But they've got plenty of gay enemies.

[maxpowr9]

Substitute "gay" with any non-white descriptor and you have the 1960s all over again.

[Ninja108]

In the Colorado Civil Unions bill last year,two of the Republicians who voted against it made it a point to let people know they had gay realtives that they "loved" but were still voting against,as it was a measure of pride.
One of them got primiaried anyway. She voted against her son for nothing.
I'll say what I've said in other threads,there are valid reasons to gripe against Portman but let's not lose sight of the fact that compared to so many other Republicians,he has stood up for his son.
ANd trust me,from what I've read and heard,he is already facing a primary challenge. And if you look at his facebook feed,he has gotten major backlash.