Rob Portman an Ohio Senator is the first Republican in the Senate to support homosexual marriage. In 1996, Portman voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Three years later he voted to bar homosexual couples in Washington, D.C., from adopting.
Why did he suddenly change his position? Because one of Rob Portman’s sons said that he was a homosexual. His son told him that he’s always “felt” this way. Keep in mind that everybody feels certain ways about lots of things, but their better moral sense stops them from acting on them.
Like clockwork, the media jumped on the story. A hard push is being made to get the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA. President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton are calling for its repeal.
MSNBC host Richard Lui asked Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah the following question:
“And if one of your children were to be gay, you would not change your perspective is what you’re saying?”
Since when are laws written and moral positions taken based on how our children feel and act? One of the reasons our government is in a fiscal crisis is because elected officials vote in terms of what people want and not what they took an oath to uphold. Theft is wrong, yet it’s OK to vote for legislation that takes money from some people so it can be given to other people. Why are we surprised when politicians repeatedly flip-flop all over the place because of how someone “feels”?
Are there no longer any moral standards? If Senator Rob Portman’s son wants to live and love another man, no one’s stopping him. But to overthrow the moral order of the universe by having the State sanction homosexuality is a grave evil.
No one is denied love. I love all kinds of people, but it’s a moral evil to believe that love necessitates sexual relations. Once you go down this road, there’s no way to stop.
Would Senator Rob Portman throw his support behind pedophilia if he had learned that his son was a pedophile? There are young pedophiles out there. Would he support adultery if his son was an adulterer? Would he support slavery if he found out that one of his relatives was a slave owner and argued persuasively that owning slaves was legitimate? Would the Senator Rob Portman support his son if he learned that he was selling drugs to children? Would he support contract killing if he learned that his son was a contract killer for the mob?
Senator Rob Portman’s son has made a bad moral choice. There is no need to compound that bad moral choice by capitulating to it and softening the moral barriers for young men and women who are struggling with their sexuality and helping to pass laws that will affect millions of people.
On a side note, when Bill Clinton engaged sexually with Monica Lewinsky, it was not long before young people took up the new moral standard that oral sex was not really sex.
Senator Rob Portman can change his views personally, but he has no right to impose his new personal morality on the rest of us. Homosexual marriage laws have consequences far beyond what two people want to do.
As parents, we set standards for our children to live by. When our children rebelled against those standards when they were growing up with us, there were supposed to be consequences. It did not matter how our children felt when they did something wrong. Beating up the neighborhood kid because “I felt like it” or “I couldn’t help myself” were not proper moral responses.
There are millions of examples of children going astray in millions of different ways. As parents, we don’t justify these moral infractions by now saying that it’s OK to do them because we want our children to be happy.
There are always times when we have to take a moral stand, even if it turns out to be against the decisions of members of our family.
Will Supreme Court John Roberts vote for homosexual marriage because one of his cousins is a lesbian and will be attending the same-sex marriage hearings? Lady Justice is said to be blind; that is, justice is to look at the merits of a case and not on those who stand before the court. Leviticus 19:15 states:
“You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”
A similar admonition is found in the New Testament:
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ [Lev. 19:18] you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:8–9).
Pro-homosexual advocates will argue that not allowing people who want to engage in same-sex sex and marry is showing partiality. The biblical prohibition against same-sex sex applies to everybody, not just to people who claim to be homosexual, bi-sexual, or transgendered (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18–32). There is no class of people who are designated by nature or birth to be homosexuals. That’s why Paul describes same-sex sex to be “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26–27). The God-created sexual equipment does not fit. That alone should be enough to convince our rationalistic friends that same-sex sex is irrational.