Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a leading conservative voice in the Senate, said Friday he now believes government should not stand in the way of allowing same sex couples to marry.
"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldnt deny them the opportunity to get married," he wrote in a commentary in the Columbus Dispatch.
Portman concedes "That isnt how Ive always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way."
He recounts how two years ago, his son Will, then a college student, told his parents he was gay.
"He said hed known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasnt something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage," the senator wrote. "We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person hed always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love."
Portman, who was said to be a serious contender for the 2012 Republican vice presidential nomination, went on to describe his feelings and views:
"At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.
I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bibles overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.
Well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of marriage for gay couples, and maintaining religious freedom is as important as pursuing civil marriage rights. For example, I believe that no law should force religious institutions to perform weddings or recognize marriages they dont approve of.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in peoples lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.
One way to look at it is that gay couples desire to marry doesn't amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.
Over the past decade, nine states and the District of Columbia have recognized marriage for same-sex couples. It is understandable to feel cautious about making a major change to such an important social institution, but the experience of the past decade shows us that marriage for same-sex couples has not undercut traditional marriage. In fact, over the past 10 years, the national divorce rate has declined.
Ronald Reagan said all great change in America begins at the dinner table, and thats been the case in my family. Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.
The process of citizens persuading fellow citizens is how consensus is built and enduring change is forged. Thats why I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as its moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.
Ive thought a great deal about this issue, and like millions of Americans in recent years, Ive changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples. As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage."