15 thoughts on “Changes”

  1. Nah. He was probably always either for SSM or didn’t care. But now he no longer needs to appeal to middle-of-the-road general-election voters, and he wants to raise money from Democrats who tend to be passionate SSM supporters.

  2. I wonder if those same Hollywood donors got to the countless Republicans who have also evolved in their thinking on this issue.

    Or maybe it was just that they decided to stop playing politics with it.

    Someday, the rest of you will, too.


  3. Of course he didn’t cave. The business about “opposing” SSM was always boob-bait for the bubbas. His “opposition” to SSM was about as sincere as his “opposition” to Iran getting nukes.

  4. .

    Pssstttt!!! A quiet little secret fer ya:

    HE WAS LYING THROUGH HIS $#%^$@^$@&@$&@%^$& TEETH…


    I’m SURE this comes as a SHOCK to most of you…

  5. “Someday, the rest of you will, too.”

    I don’t care about gays “marrying.” I know how it began with the AIDS crisis. Gays were in fear of the promiscuity that is part of gay male life. Lesbians not so much but they tended more to monogamy. Many gays began to try to impose some sort of monogamous relationship incentive on gay men. I knew many of them in Laguna Beach which was devastated by the epidemic.

    Now that drug treatment of AIDS is much better and it is no long a death sentence, even gay advocates are saying the gay marriages among men are “open.” The marriage movement has failed in its initial impetus and it is a fad that will fade away. How many gay marriages occurred in Canada once opposition was furiously suppressed ?

    The Kennedy decisions on this and housing have destroyed federalism, however. That is what will have serious consequences, including possibly a revolution.

  6. I see this as a libertarian victory. How is anyone’s life affected if two women around the corner or two guys on the next street get married. And why is your job or the state’s job to stop that? The America I love and support is the home of the free and the land of the brave. We’re a better country when we respect the freedom of others to live as they choose.

  7. “We’re a better country when we respect the freedom of others to live as they choose.”

    Unless they are a religious baker or florist or photographer, of course. They are haters and must be punished.

    My leftist lawyer son told me, with his usual contempt for anyone who disagrees with him, that I was ridiculous to express concern about the status of churches that declined to perform the ceremony out of religious belief. That was five or more years ago.

    I never anticipated the punishment of bakers with $150,000 fines.

    This is not about love. It is about punishing anyone who disagrees.

  8. >>Unless they are a religious baker or florist or photographer, of course. They are haters and must be punished.

    Agree completely. That’s totalitarian, and is the opposite of what I support. I think two gays should be able to marry if they choose, and a baker or florist should have the right to refuse to have anything to do it, if they so choose. I like a live and let live society, to the degree you’re bothering anyone else. Why should that be a problem?

  9. “Why should that be a problem?”

    Because this is not about freedom. It is about power and revenge.

  10. They are both problems with the state interfering in peoples freedom and lives. That needs to stop, all around.

  11. I heard a recording some years ago of a woman in Hawaii who purportedly hung out with him as a teen. She was surprised that anyone would identify him as anything but gay. No idea if it’s true. Also, that church in Chicago, we know someone who attended. It’s a weird story, not unusual in this era, other than that, he also attended. And there are just so many extraordinary coincidences connected to this individual. Not saying that one must be gay to support SSM, but it probably doesn’t hurt.

  12. Gay marriage boils down to a government sanction to receive government benefits. It amounts to saving a couple a few thousand dollars in legal fees otherwise used to set up power of attorney, health care proxy, estate planning, etc. by designating their relationship government approved.

    I’m wondering how long until straight religious couples decide they don’t want to be part of government marriage and go for all that legal work instead. Churches could help set up legal services to streamline the process. Aside from the mundane medical and financial details, there isn’t any other appeal to government marriage, and I can easily see people of faith abandoning it.

Comments are closed.