Grassroots Commentary

Senator Rob Portman's Homosexual Descent

By Selwyn Duke · Mar. 18, 2013

In another case in the annals of conservative “adaptation” to yesterday's liberal innovation, Ohio Republican senator Rob Portman has just announced that he now supports faux marriage. The change was motivated, he said, by his son having come out to him and his wife as a homosexual.

Well, it's a good thing his son didn't announce that he was involved in bestiality.

Talk about a pandering parent.

We can also talk here about letting your personal life influence your public policy. If I were a statesman and learned that a child of mine were hooked on cocaine or had joined the Taliban, I wouldn't change my position on drug policy or terrorism. Of course, Portman has said that his son's revelation inspired some soul searching, and, true, life events can spur thought and intellectual growth. But is his decision really the fruits of sound intellectual analysis?

In an interview on his Obamaesque evolution, Portman talked about his “Christian faith,” “love and compassion,” and the Golden Rule. As to the last thing, I would certainly want others to do unto me as they would have me do unto them (unless they happen to be masochists), and this would include leading me toward Truth and virtue – not away from them.

And while Jesus espoused the Golden Rule, He also said, “[H]e that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” The fact is that God and His law come even before family; “Blood is not thicker than morality,” as Dr. Laura Schlessinger once put it. And while this may seem a harsh prescription, it is actually the only way to do right by your family. I'll explain.

Portman cares about his son's happiness, as any parent would. But what breeds happiness? Aristotle pointed out that virtue (good moral habits) is a prerequisite for a happy life, and this is where God's law comes into play. To start with a simple example, it may seem to make a little child happy at the moment if you allow him to eat a quart of ice cream for dinner, play all day instead of tending to education, or steal a toy from a store. Yet we know that such indulgence wouldn't breed the virtue of temperance, industriousness, or honesty and wouldn't lead to happiness. Likewise, would we encourage a grown son to deal drugs or steal cars if the money realized thereby seemed to make him happy?

The point is that the loving thing isn't always to give people what they want, but what they need. And this is where a person's yardstick for decision-making matters. If we're emotion-oriented, we'll likely put too much stock in someone's feelings and give him what he wants even when those feelings contradict moral law.

Unfortunately, this is common nowadays due to our descent into moral relativism. After all, we can't use morality – which, properly understood, refers to rules for man's behavior that originate outside of man – as a yardstick if we don't believe it exists. And this is precisely relativism's underlying message, with its claim that what we call “morality” is just a function of man's collective preferences. And without this awareness of moral reality, emotion becomes the most compelling yardstick for behavior available.

And we live in the age of emotion. As American Thinker's Rick Moran recently put it when discussing Portman's situation, “As more and more Americans realize that they are related to, or work with, or live next to someone who is gay, it is inevitable that acceptance follows.” It's absolutely true that this is how it works – among people detached from Truth – which is a good argument for why certain things should never be allowed out of the closet in the first place. But, again, it makes no sense and, furthermore, is a recipe for disaster. Why? Because it eliminates morality by reducing decisions about human behavior to popularity or “majority vote.” The Vikings stole for a living, the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice on a massive scale, and for most of history slavery was a universal. And these things were accepted because they were common. But if a people wishes to become or remain civilized, their yardstick for behavior cannot be “Hey, everybody's doing it.”

Mr. Moran also said in his commentary, “More and more sons and daughters are outing themselves [as homosexuals] to their parents who are then faced with the stark choice of disowning their children or embracing them.” But the second part of this is untrue. If a child is hooked on drugs, are the only two choices disowning or embracing? Between those two extremist errors is an enlightened position called “hating the sin but loving the sinner.”

Of course, it is true that more and more children are coming out as homosexuals. What is also true, however, is that more and more are getting into homosexuality in the first place. I know, the common response here is that people are “born that way.” Save it. Pederasty was institutionalized in ancient Spartan military camps, with 12-year-old boys being attached to older men who would become their mentors and lovers. But were the Spartans so different genetically? Were they all “born that way”?

Regardless of what genetic and intrauterine factors one may consider relevant (I treated this in-depth here), any sane person understands that there is an enormous psychological component to man's sexuality. This is why it's so destructive when, through the schools and popular culture, we send kids the message that sexual experimentation is okay. “Hey, try it; you may like it. It's all genetic, anyway, so you need to discover what you really are.” The fact is that a young person's sexuality can be twisted with relative ease, but, unfortunately, cannot be straightened out nearly as easily, which is why sexual problems can be so intractable. This is why Judeo-Christian sexual guide rails are so important and why C.S. Lewis once wrote, “Sexuality is not messed up because it was put in the closet. It was put in the closet because it was messed up.”

Mr. Moran concludes his commentary about the increasing acceptance of homosexuality with the line, “All we can be sure of is that the future will look different than the present.” No doubt. And it is clear how the future of the American republic looks.


You can contact Selwyn Duke at Follow him on Twitter: or log on to


rippedchef in sc said:

you forgot selfish,spineless and shallow.Portman is a fine example of a man having no standards,morally relative and without honor.If he had any stones he'd change parties,at least then he'd be honest

Monday, March 18, 2013 at 5:21 PM

josh in newport beah, ca replied:

"Morally relative"
Like the Christian God?

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska said:

"Like a trampled spring and a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." (Proverbs 25:26)

Monday, March 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM

josh in newport beah, ca replied:

They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old. - Joshua 6:21

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Abu Nudnik in Toronto said:

While I cannot regard same-sex marriage as anything but an error and grave danger to a society, your arguments are full of holes and will not be an effective weapon against those who advocate it.

Firstly, government's job is not to be the parent to "its" citizens, nor can a free society be one of children." It is for the people to instruct the government. Secondly, it is not the job of government to offer moral guidance: that is for the church.

It is for government to offer reasonable governance through its tripartite organs of legislature, jurisprudence and executive function. That means conserving what is basic to the institutions of a culture and progressing when progress does not undermine those basic institutions.

Marriage is a root institution and progress can only go as far was it does not undermine this tap root. Neither from a conservative or a libertarian point of view does Portman's "conversion" make sense - on that I agree with you. But you miss the main point.

Weddings celebrate the marriage of two sexes by two persons, each of whom represents one or the other of the sexes. The joining of two persons regardless of sex does not subsume the idea of the joining of the two sexes by which every life begins. It is this recognition of the first of the two mysteries, birth and death, that weddings represent. Therefore the marriage of two sexes is the more inclusive symbol. Only numerically is the joining of two persons regardless of sex more "inclusive" and only a materialist could see it that way.

Monday, March 18, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Roland in Texas replied:

Abu... 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 disagree with you.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 3:36 AM

wjm in Colorado said:

If we're emotion-oriented, we'll likely put too much stock in someone's feelings and give him what he wants even when those feelings contradict moral law.

this is the basis of all the flawed and irresponsible liberal legislation, where emotion is given prededence over facts. Reason is withheld and incoherent emotive guidance leads to expressions like "if it only saves one life". It results in mass killings in gun free zones legislated by the fools who let the miscreant loose on society, who then see the weapon as the cause, not the perpetrator. The Marxists are deranged fools, supported by useful idiots, who vote for their own slavery to the master.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Drew in GA said:

Thanks for sharing your point of view! It's important that people like you continue to say these things so that the true nature of the opposition to marriage equality is shown. Enjoy losing the culture wars.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

And as you embrace the decline in morals and societal values, enjoy your descent into Hell. Drew, thank you for your expose of endorsement of aberrant and sick behavior.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM

josh in newport beah, ca replied:

Ah. Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to Emotion (Disgust) Really logical arguements there.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Roland in Texas replied:

hypothesis contrary to fact - if you don't want to hear the truth, don't show up

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 3:49 AM

christian pelham in houston, texas said:

PLEASE SIR WRITE MORE ARTICLES AND MAKE THEM EVEN MORE UNTRUE AND NASTY AND UNCHRISTIAN. The more you talk the farther the pendulum swings towards full equality for gay people. Never heard of a gay person into this beastialty you are so obsessed with but in the past twenty years I've seen two or thee man/horse kind of love stories on the news and remember every one was "married" and I assume that means they were not gay!

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

This author couldn't be MORE Christian, and I applaud the effort. You endorse a sick and abberant mental condition. Have a nice day.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM

josh in newport beah, ca replied:

Expalin according medical guideline why being gays is aental condition.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Rewriting the books to describe the aberrant and sick behavior as normal doesn't make it so, just as rewriting History to laud the ever failing Marxist Ideology as a success versus Capitalism is also a lie. You are a useful indoctrinated idiot, as your post so eloquently displays.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Bob in Utah said:

THANK YOU, Selwyn!! You brilliantly illustrate the animus (i.e., equating all homosexuals with those who rape animals) that lies beneath the "Protect Marriage" movement! It's precisely this kind of hate that has people turning away from the Republican Party in droves. Poor ol' Reince Preibus is even having to admit that “Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be. If our Party is not welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out.”

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Hey Bob, this is what you get through Liberal indoctrination for the last 60 years that glorifies aberrant and immorral behavior, and throws God out the window in favor of feel good emotional drivel and wallowing in sin. I don't accept that future, why would you?

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Paul Ginandes in MA said:

Isn't it interesting that in a conservative blog, with a banner that reads,"Voice of Essential Liberty", a man who finds compassion for his own son, and wishes him to have full equality, is vilified for not abandoning that son and sacrificing him on the alter of conservative "family" values? The irony is almost too good!
I don't think liberty in America is reserved for christians, or conservatives, or heterosexuals only.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 4:02 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Coming from MA, I wouldn't expect you to be able to distinguish between Liberty and the Marxist Statist Tyranny being crammed down our collective throats. This isn't about the gay sodomites rights, they can do as they please, and have the same rights as every on else. This is about CONTROL, and mandating an abberant agenda, getting GOD out of America. Useful Idiocy is rampant in America.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11:42 AM