Hillary Clinton recently came out to say she supported a supreme court decision affirming the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. How odd, I thought, since she was staunchly against it when she was a Senator back in the mid 2000s.
From this we can glean several possible explanations as to her "evolution" (blatant changing) of views.
First, it's possible she was always for gay rights and is simply a coward who realized the issue was too unpopular back in the Bush era to raise.
Second, it's possible she was actually against them on a religious basis and still is but has decided that her opinion is no longer popular, so she's pretending to give a damn.
Third, perhaps she's just a con artist who has no real views at all and is simply trying to make money. I think that's probably the most likely explanation for her flip flop and subsequent attempt to cover up her own moral failings.
I remain the only candidate truly dedicated to gay rights; I have always supported them, and was never a civil union supporting half-assed centrist like Hillary or most other Democrat shills from the same period, nor have I ever been a make believe bible thumper like some in the GOP. Rather I say; the government, in issuing marriage as a civil contract, has no legal right at any level to determine which consenting adults may apply for such a contract. Further, in the future, I fully expect polygamy and other arrangements involving more than just two partners to be recognized. I would not give a damn; because it does not affect me or anyone external to the same state contract.
Further I believe no genuine religious body (in their churches and syagogues and so forth) has any legal responsibility to perform gay marriage services; as the marriage itself is a contract and resides in the realm of state control, as opposed to a marital ceremony which is religious. Some churches, however, already recognize and perform such unions; namely the Unitarians, Episcopals, and Methodists.