Hypervocal Menu


Portman’s Marriage Equality Reversal Leads to Serious Republican Derp

Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter

Slade Sohmer

By Slade Sohmer on April 1, 2013

Ever since Sen. Rob Portman offered his full-throated support for marriage equality, inquiring media minds want to know every other Republican’s take.

The good news is that every Republican seems to be obliging the reporters. The bad news is that they’re releasing more derp per capita than we’ve ever seen. Here are three prime examples from the past 48 hours:


• Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party

Everhart, who may or may not have just been Clockwork Orange’d and forced to sit through multiple horrific screenings of I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry on an endless loop, thinks marriage equality is just an insurance scam:

“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart told the Marietta Daily Journal. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal.”

Everhart added: “There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

More like free moustache rides, amirite folks?! Everhart is so right — this whole tiresome, uphill push to be seen as equal is just a big Trojan Horse for getting people slightly better insurance than they have now. Busted.

• Rep. Matt Salmon, Arizona’s 5th congressional district

Portman was perhaps unfairly maligned for only caring about his own gay son and not yours. But not every Republican with a gay son is pro-equality.

“I don’t support the gay marriage,” the social conservative said. But Salmon emphasized that he loved and respected his son and did not consider homosexuality a choice.

“My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say,” an emotional Salmon told 3TV. “It doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize with some of the issues. It just means I haven’t evolved to that stage.”

Because nothing says “I love my gay son” more than telling the entire country you view him as a second-class citizen. Thought bubble here: No, really, I’m simply protecting him from the ability to get married because I love my gay son as much as I hate my straight wife. Hey, relax, at least he didn’t show everyone that “I love my dead gay son” bumper sticker on his Humvee.

Let 83-Year-Old DOMA Plaintiff Explain What Marriage Means
The ‘Golden Girls’ NAILED Marriage Equality Back in 1991

• Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Kansas’s 1st congressional district

It should come as no surprise that Huelskamp refuses to compromise his personal beliefs, considering he was proud of his efforts to kill his own party leader’s Plan B to avoid the fiscal cliff. In a Washington Times op-ed, the Kansas Republican wrote he thinks this is an issue of killing motherhood:

In the Hollingsworth case, though, The Justice Department argues that children do not need mothers. The Obama administration makes the incredible assertion that motherhood is superfluous to rebut an argument that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, provides the ideal situation to raise a child. In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each. …

Sen. Obama was right; President Obama is wrong. There is overwhelming social science evidence to corroborate the benefits of raising children in homes with both a mom and a dad. Who among us does not know there are differing parenting styles between men and women and that children deserve both? Government, both federal and state, has a legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and father are, in fact, raised by their biological mothers and fathers whenever possible.

Huelskamp’s Helen Lovejoy impression is absurd for two reasons. First, if there’s so much social science evidence out there, why not cite it? Hyperlink it. Use it in a parenthetical. You just wrote an 843-word op-ed, and yet you backed up your biggest claim with literally nothing. Good work, congressman!

Secondly, if you want to fight for families so bad, perhaps focus primarily on the straight families that are breaking up and leaving hundreds of thousands of kids in broken homes. That’s the bigger problem. You fix that, and fix it good, then we can talk about making sure loving couples who want to raise children in a loving two-parent home don’t get to do just that.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter