'The personal is political' is no reason to change

I ONCE KNEW a woman who was adamantly, stridently, proudly pro-choice. She and I met at our freshman orientation in 1979, which prompted a panicked phone call to my mother along the lines of, "Rescue me from this place!" Over the years, I followed the woman's progress as we eyed each other from opposite sides of the ideological barricade, connected only by a love of our shared alma mater.

Then, through a friend of a friend, I learned that this classmate was living in Kentucky and had five kids, including one with special needs. I also learned that she was now adamantly, stridently, proudly pro-life.

How did it happen? I asked. And the friend of a friend told me that when she was pregnant with that special-needs child and was counseled that abortion might be the best option, my pro-choice classmate realized the nature of that other "choice."

I tell this story as an explanation of why I understand what Rob Portman did last week. The conservative, pro-life, DOMA-voting senator from Ohio came out (sorry but there's just no other way to put it) and announced his support for same-sex marriage. The reason he did so, after being such a strong advocate for traditional marriage, is both the most understandable and the least admirable motive in the world: self-interest.

Portman's son told his family that he was gay, so the loving father put aside whatever philosophical, religious or legal convictions he'd held on what was obviously a core belief and did what any good parent does: he supported his boy.

This move made no one happy. Conservatives were understandably upset that the man who'd been one heartbeat away from the nomination for vice president on the Romney ticket had essentially sucker-punched the traditional values coalition.

More surprisingly, numerous liberals criticized Portman for making his move only after his own interests (or at least those of a loved one) were at stake.

Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Personally, I have little respect for someone who "evolves" simply because he sees the effect his values have in actual practice on actual people.

My old college classmate came late to the realization that abortion was immoral only because she'd already fallen in love with the child in her womb. She had no prior concern for all the other children sentenced to oblivion by that fine, feminist rhetoric she absorbed in the home and at Bryn Mawr College.

Same thing with Portman. I find myself, oddly, agreeing in principle with those on the left who refuse to take a "better late than never" attitude with the senator's decision to change what one hoped was a reasoned, thoughtful and honest position on same-sex marriage. They point out, justifiably, that the senator isn't up for re-election until 2016, and that Ohio is one of those purplish states when it comes to social issues. In other words, he played it safe.

My problem with this change of heart is not really that it happened, although it is a disappointment. (But we still have that other Ohioan, John Boehner, bless his heart.) My problem, such as it is, is that Portman joins a long list of people who actually live the credo "the personal is political." They form their beliefs based on changes in circumstance and allow their hearts to rule their minds. While that sometimes yields pleasant results (as when a formerly pro-choice woman embraces the right to life), it doesn't say much for our ability to form coherent, solid values that withstand the vagaries and injustices of personal experience.

But, you might argue, it is precisely those personal experiences that form the prism through which we view the world, so it's both normal and desirable to allow them to affect our reasoning process.

I beg to differ, strongly. You don't need to feel life growing within you to realize that what is created when a man and a woman come together in love is human. Likewise, the fact that your son is gay should not shatter your belief that the institution of marriage, limited to one man and one woman, is a foundation of our society even if your son will not be able to enjoy it.

When Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court was being considered by the Senate a few years ago, she made the infamous comment that the court could benefit from the presence of a "wise Latina." People defended her by saying that none of us are clean slates and we all make decisions based on personal experience.

Maybe so. But if we accept the fact that there are no absolutes in life, and that it's all just one big evolving game of empathy, why even bother to defend our values?

They're just one gay son away from changing.