Evolving Door Politicians: Paul Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption

Romney ryan comebackteampost1

We’ve got more “evolution” going on in Congress.

In yet another poll-reading flip-flop, Congressman Paul Ryan now says that he supports gay adoption. Ryan was last fall’s vice-presidential candidate — and the hope of values voters — on the Republican ticket. One of his first first actions in that race was to weaken his stand on abortion. Congressman Ryan voted against allowing homosexuals to adopt children in the past, but that, as they say, was then.

I doubt very much that he’s evolved on issues such as corporate welfare and taxing the middle class to give to the rich. I’ll bet he still has never met a tank or a gun, a bomb or a war he didn’t like and that his desire to raid social security is as strong today as it was yesterday.

My quibble here isn’t so much with the Congressman’s opinion itself as that he clearly can’t be trusted to stick with what he says are his values concerning so-called moral issues. Of course, he’s not alone in this. There’s so much “evolving” going on in the political sector that it’s dizzying.

Maybe these elected officials should just give a proxy for their votes to Gallup polls and save themselves the trouble of going in to work.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

The forum was a town-hall meeting in his home state of Wisconsin. Asked a question on gay rights, Ryan said that in 1999 or 2000, he had voted against allowing adoptions by same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but that he’d be a “yea” on that issue if it came up today.

“I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple – I think if a person wants to love and raise a child, they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman; we just respectfully disagree on that issue,” Ryan said.

The Wisconsin lawmaker elaborated a bit on this position in remarks to a local television reporter, saying he’d felt that way for years, but he’s never talked about it publicly. He gave no indication if a defining moment or event caused the change of heart. (Read the rest here.)

  • pagansister

    Like many politicians, Rebecca (no disrespect to you at all) Ryan will say anything to help him get re-elected.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      It remains to be seen whether this crap will in fact do anything of the kind. Even supposing that there is a majority for giving little boys in the custody of homosexual couples (a situation not unlike giving them into the custody of homosexual Catholic priests, whether you like it or not), the vast majority of those holding such opinions will not vote for him anyway. So all he does is kick his natural supporters in the face. No, this is much more easily explained by the analysis of political donations. The amount of rich polymorphously perverse people willing and ready to spend their own money to spread the gospel of polymorphous perversity is much larger than many of us imagine.

  • Sus

    “Maybe these elected officials should just give a proxy for their votes to Gallup polls and save themselves the trouble of going in to work.”

    That would be more honest than how it works now!

  • Kathleen Schilling

    Paul Ryan was on World Over on EWTN a couple of weeks ago – and he totally lost my respect with one of his comments.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      What did he say?

  • FW Ken

    But he’s been re-elected recently. What’s changed in his district? Or will change in the next two years? His party controls the House. What is the motive here? To whom is he pandering?

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      To the money men. Rebecca is still being too kind to her colleagues. These people are not just following Gallup polls; they are being bought and paid for by very moneyed special interests.

    • Brandon

      Maybe he’s actually just grown as a person. Always a sketchy proposition with politicians, but not at all impossible.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        It’s interesting that his “growth” tracks with the polls.

        • Brandon

          I suppose it’s interesting, to some extent, but it shouldn’t really be a surprise if it’s a genuine development. If someone genuinely changed their mind, why would it be surprising that they did so at the same time that a significant cultural sea change occurred?

          I think there’s quite a few people that came around on this one, for a number of reasons. I don’t see any reason to believe that a politician would be immune to the same sorts of experience that has brought so many other people around.

          • Rebecca Hamilton

            Well … since we can’t read his mind, your guess is as good as mine. :-)

  • Bill S

    “Ryan said that in 1999 or 2000, he had voted against allowing adoptions by same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but that he’d be a “yea” on that issue if it came up today.”

    He’s obviously looking ahead to 2016. His being Catholic will create a problem. He will have to choose between being true to his faith in regard to abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, etc. or going by the polls. It’s a lose-lose decision.

  • http://onecatholicsstruggle.weebly.com Theresa

    I think there are times when a person can truly have an evolution in their thoughts and beliefs. It can be a good thing to look back and say “I was wrong about that, but now I see this is right.” But in this dude’s case, I can’t tell that he has any real deep moral convictions of his own. (I’m with you that he has deep monetary convictions.) I know a lot of people who painted Ryan as the Great Catholic Hope when he was on the Republican ticket. I don’t agree with a lot of his political views (de jour- who knows what tomorrow will bring!), but I think its important not to pin such high hopes and expectations on a single person. If we place our hopes in anybody other than Christ, we will always be disappointed.
    Rebecca, how do you balance your personal convictions with how you meet the needs and represent the concerns of your constituency? I’d love to read you philosophy on that.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Theresa, of course people’s ideas develop as they learn more. The reason I’m so harsh about this is that it’s part of a mass flip-flop on the part of a lot of politicians. I don’t think for one minute that this mass flip-flop is due to anything other than political considerations. Look at this to get a more detailed idea of my thoughts on this phenomenon.

      I don’t mind answering your question about how I make decisions. In fact, I probably ought to do that. But it’s too detailed for a combox. I’ll try to write a post on it sometime in the future.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    Ouch…I actually had a slight amount of regard for Paul Ryan’s integrity. Looks like I got duped.

    Does he realize that hardly anyone will support him now? He just lost much of the base he had, and I’m pretty sure the Dems aren’t going to embrace him. Looks like the end of his political career to me.

  • Chesire Cat11

    I would never have been a fan of Paul Ryan – our political philosophies are just too divergent – and I never accepted his values positions as anything but a sop to conservative voters. (Really, how can anybody with a moral center square Catholicism with Ayn Rand???) When I heard him speak during the 2012 campaign, however, I got a sense of him as a genuinely frightening character, who would do or say anything to serve his own interest and those of the money men financing him. I know that politicians are, by nature, opportunist, but this guy was in a class by himself.

    This sudden, convenient “evolution” only validates my assessment of the sincerity of his positions. Someone that empty , and mendacious is a dangerous man.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I will say the issue is something I’ve stuggled with. (Let say up front, my wife and I have an adopted son.) The question that’s always put is, what’s best for the child? And that is the pertinent question. What’s best is clearly a set of parents who are loving and of opposite genders. I’m not going to expand on why, but the reasons are out there. And yes if that were always possible then the answer is that a child should be adotpted by a mother (female) and a father (male). But that’s not always the choice on hand. Many children are by passed in adoption. Infants are taken at warp speed, but once a child is beyond a certain age, he/she becomes harder and harder to adopt. And if some child has some sort of health issue or deformity, he/she really beomes hard to adopt, nearly impossible. So what’s best for the child is sometimes a childhood/adolescence in an orphanage institution or perhaps being adopted by gay parents. Is being raised by gay parents (supposedly qualified having passed inspection and requirements as every possible adopting set of parents) such a detriment that it’s best to have a child grow up in an orphanage? Let’s assume most orphanages are fine and provide good and proper care, say like Boys Town. Still a child will be missing that life-long bond with parents that we all look back with affection. My parents weren’t perfect, but my parents were my connection. Now I can’t speak to how someone who has gone through the orphanage experience feels. I assume it still has some level of affection.

    So where do I stand? I’ve gone back and forth. I don’t know we have enough statistical data to know what’s the impact of being raised by gay parents. Should we leave it up to the child? How can an eight year old make such a choice?

    I’m not excusing Paul Ryan’s flip-flop. He’s obviously playing politics. But the issue is complicated.

  • pagansister

    Manny, you make many good points about adoption and those little ones who are “left behind” because they are too old. I tend to think that if they can find a “forever home” with either a same gender couple or even a single man or woman, it is better than a group situation until they are old enough to fend for themselves. My mother was adopted at 7. She was one of the lucky “older” children. As to Ryan’s flip-flop—-who knows? He is as you say, playing politics.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      My problem with this line of thinking is that I don’t think it’s based in reality. From what I see, homosexuals are not adopting the children you describe. They are having designer babies made for them — at great harm to women. I think this whole line of argument is a pr thing that has been sold to people.

  • pagansister

    Rebecca, I believe some of the SS couples are taking hard to adopt children. Posting on Beliefnet several years ago, was a man who was married to another man and he and his partner had adopted 2 boys, who were brothers and older, because they had been in the system since they were little. I would like to believe that other SS couples are doing that also. A neighbor in my previous state had a single daughter. She adopted a little boy who was 6 at the time. IMO, we hear of the SSM celebrities who are, as you put it, are having designer babies made for them and not about the “average” SS couples who take older children. Perhaps I have fallen for the pr, but personally, I do not have an objection to SS couples adopting.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      That’s not happening among the ones I know, and there is a big industry making designer babies that is aimed at providing babies for gay men. That’s all I know for sure.

  • Ken

    “…the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

    This famous quote demonstrates why the polls are shifting. Politicians shifting along with this moral arc is a good sign.

    Peer-reviewed science has clearly demonstrated that what’s best for children is clearly a set of parents who are loving, regardless of gender. The ridiculous Regnerus study seems to be the only significant opposing view. Unfortunately for Regnerus et.al., his methodology was so bad (comparing broken homes which happened to have one member who once had a gay relationship to stable opposite-sex homes), it was retracted by the journal which published it.

    You are free to check out the scholarly research in this field yourself. Just check out PubMed and Google Scholar for access to those articles.

    The best moral solution for children needing adoption is to put them in the demonstrably best homes with a loving couple. Period. Our secular government should only make decisions about this based upon empirical evidence. That’s the truly moral solution for our nation.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I think the attacks on the Regnerus study are politically motivated. I also think that the opinions of the various groups you mentioned have been so bastardized by political considerations that they are not science, but political correctness.

      • Dorfl

        Politics is certainly the reason that Regenerus’ study has attracted as much attention as it has. But at the end of the day the methodological flaws as still there, aren’t they? – No matter what motivated people to point them out.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          I think this topic is complex enough to merit its own post. Maybe I should look at it in more depth and do that. For now, I’m going to leave it to readers who may be able to discuss it with you better than I can.

          • Dorfl

            Fair enough. I would be very interested in reading that post.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              You’ll have to wait a while. We’re doing heavy-duty work on my job right now — long hours, emotional debates, angry people — and I’m just hanging on here until it’s over. I’ll try to get to it in early summer.

  • pagansister

    At this point in my life, I’m sure you have more experience than I do in this area. I’m no longer out and about as often since we are retired. I do not doubt what you are saying—but guess I can hope that, as I said above, some SS couples are taking the little ones others are rejecting. :-)

  • numenian

    Given his history and how he behaved in the last election, this “reveation” about Ryan dupicity is an utterly Duh moment. He seems the epitome of Opportunism. But that fits with his social darwinism. Vacuous and dupicitous: nice ticket last election.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X