Not long ago, I wrote a bit about Republican Ohio Senator Rob Portman, giving him kudos for writing an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch, where he came out in support of gay-marriage rights - the first Republican Senator to fully support these rights. Not much time lapsed before other members of the party made me shake my head in disbelief.
Perhaps it shouldn't have come as much of a surprise, but following Portman's op-ed, he received his fair share of criticism from members of his own party at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). Kansas Representative Tim Huelskamp was one such member.
On Friday, Huelskamp said the following with regard to Portman:
"Here's a senator who couldn't deliver his own home state in the presidential election. ...somehow, we're supposed to believe that if we abandon traditional marriage, that liberals are going to flock to us."
When asked how he would react if his son announced he was gay, like Portman's son did, Huelskamp responded with this:
"Well, I agree with Senator Portman when he ran for election. And that's the principle. The principle is, traditional marriage and family is the foundation of society. It's been a conservative bedrock principle for many years. And one thing that we have to do as conservatives, I believe, is actually communicate the value of marriage and family for the children. [...] Bill Clinton and myself, Bill Clinton in 1997 had the same position I have today. Actually Barack Obama had the same position two years ago. Isn't it amazing how you read the tea leaves, you read the polls, and at the end of the day something suddenly changes over night?"
When asked if he'd still oppose same-sex marriage if his son came out of the closet, Huelskamp said, "I support traditional marriage."
This is sadly humorous. Huelskamp criticizes Portman for changing his stance on gay-marriage rights and gives him a cheap shot for not having the magical power to deliver Ohio for Romney in the 2012 presidential election, yet when asked if he'd still oppose same-sex marriage if his own son came out of the closet, he refused to answer the question. "I support traditional marriage" is not answering the question. It may give the impression that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but nowhere in that quote did he actually say he's against gay-marriage rights. At least Portman had it in him to be open about what it is he believes on the matter and didn't try to duck the issue like Huelskamp did.
I also loved Huelskamp's cheap shot, when he said, "Here's a senator who couldn't deliver his home state in the presidential election..."
Obama earned 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. If Romney had won Ohio, Obama still would have won the election with 314 electoral votes to Romney's 224. Ohio wasn't even the tipping-point state - Colorado was. Also, Ohio is a major battleground state. Kansas is not. Representative Huelskamp could have slept election season away and Romney still would have dominated Obama in the state. So, congratulations, Mr. Huelskamp, for not having to do a darn thing to deliver Romney Kansas' 6 electoral votes - 2.9% of his total and 2.2% of what is needed to win the election.
Speaking of numbers, I find it pretty comical for Huelskamp to compare his beliefs of today to Bill Clinton's of 1997. That was 16 years ago. A few things have happened since then in this world, this country, and that includes events pertaining to homosexuals and their rights. If. Mr. Huelskamp wants to continue living in 1997, that's his choice. However, whether he acknowledges this fact or not, it's 2013, and like with many other issues, he's way behind the times when it comes to gay-marriage rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/16/1729021/tim-huelskamp-marriage-equality/
Perhaps it shouldn't have come as much of a surprise, but following Portman's op-ed, he received his fair share of criticism from members of his own party at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). Kansas Representative Tim Huelskamp was one such member.
On Friday, Huelskamp said the following with regard to Portman:
"Here's a senator who couldn't deliver his own home state in the presidential election. ...somehow, we're supposed to believe that if we abandon traditional marriage, that liberals are going to flock to us."
When asked how he would react if his son announced he was gay, like Portman's son did, Huelskamp responded with this:
"Well, I agree with Senator Portman when he ran for election. And that's the principle. The principle is, traditional marriage and family is the foundation of society. It's been a conservative bedrock principle for many years. And one thing that we have to do as conservatives, I believe, is actually communicate the value of marriage and family for the children. [...] Bill Clinton and myself, Bill Clinton in 1997 had the same position I have today. Actually Barack Obama had the same position two years ago. Isn't it amazing how you read the tea leaves, you read the polls, and at the end of the day something suddenly changes over night?"
When asked if he'd still oppose same-sex marriage if his son came out of the closet, Huelskamp said, "I support traditional marriage."
This is sadly humorous. Huelskamp criticizes Portman for changing his stance on gay-marriage rights and gives him a cheap shot for not having the magical power to deliver Ohio for Romney in the 2012 presidential election, yet when asked if he'd still oppose same-sex marriage if his own son came out of the closet, he refused to answer the question. "I support traditional marriage" is not answering the question. It may give the impression that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but nowhere in that quote did he actually say he's against gay-marriage rights. At least Portman had it in him to be open about what it is he believes on the matter and didn't try to duck the issue like Huelskamp did.
I also loved Huelskamp's cheap shot, when he said, "Here's a senator who couldn't deliver his home state in the presidential election..."
Obama earned 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. If Romney had won Ohio, Obama still would have won the election with 314 electoral votes to Romney's 224. Ohio wasn't even the tipping-point state - Colorado was. Also, Ohio is a major battleground state. Kansas is not. Representative Huelskamp could have slept election season away and Romney still would have dominated Obama in the state. So, congratulations, Mr. Huelskamp, for not having to do a darn thing to deliver Romney Kansas' 6 electoral votes - 2.9% of his total and 2.2% of what is needed to win the election.
Speaking of numbers, I find it pretty comical for Huelskamp to compare his beliefs of today to Bill Clinton's of 1997. That was 16 years ago. A few things have happened since then in this world, this country, and that includes events pertaining to homosexuals and their rights. If. Mr. Huelskamp wants to continue living in 1997, that's his choice. However, whether he acknowledges this fact or not, it's 2013, and like with many other issues, he's way behind the times when it comes to gay-marriage rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/16/1729021/tim-huelskamp-marriage-equality/
Comments
Post a Comment