« Romney manages to piss everyone off in stem cell debate | Main | Dean's DNC Acceptance Speech »

February 12, 2005

Reilly beats sword into ploughshare in the "culture war"

Good man:

In an interview yesterday, Reilly, an unannounced Democratic candidate for governor, struck a tone that is far different from the public posture he held for several years. Reilly said he was ''moved" by the same-sex marriages that took place after gay marriage was legalized May 17, and added that he would vote against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage if it reaches the 2006 state ballot.

"Once rights are given, they should not be taken away," Reilly said. [my emphasis]

Now, I don't know if he really had a change of heart, or if he felt that the public opinion was changing, if he's covering his bases within the party, or if he just decided it wasn't worth the effort to fight anymore. And it doesn't matter now. He did the right thing, and came a step closer to getting my vote.

Thanks, Tom.

Posted by Charley on the MTA at 06:30 PM in Massachusetts | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83456d93f69e200e55078b0e18834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reilly beats sword into ploughshare in the "culture war":

Comments

He's not changing his mind, really. Check out what he wrote almost three years ago regarding the potential constitutional amendment.

I understand that there is a lot of anger toward Reilly regarding the 1913 law and his arguing the government's side in Goodrich, but I think his statements then and today show that his is light years ahead of Romney on this issue.

Posted by: sco | Feb 12, 2005 9:11:23 PM

Great link, sco. Thanks.

I also think it's important to keep in mind that it's the AG's job to enforce the law, even if the law is stupid, wrong, and narrow-minded. Obviously, he's got a lot of discretion in enforcing it, but it's my impression that Reilly tends to be pretty narrow and legalistic -- I'm thinking of his position against the wind farm, which is based on use of public lands by a private firm, not on the view-vs.-air-quality issue.

Anyway, I say welcome aboard.

Posted by: Charley on the MTA | Feb 13, 2005 1:47:09 PM

WTF. I was against Reilly's anti-gay marriage position, but respected his position. Now he seems to be chasing votes. Booo! Another weak pol searching for votes is not what this state needs. Give me a leader, not a cipher.

I think Romney is a boob, but to win an electin, you need a quality opponent. Reilly is not that person.

Posted by: Ernst | Feb 14, 2005 12:26:17 PM

Hey Ernst,

I understand your point, but what if he was chasing votes with his previous position, and has since changed his mind on principle? How do we know?

Also, aren't politicians supposed to chase votes?

These are actually serious questions. I don't know the answer.

Posted by: Charley on the MTA | Feb 14, 2005 1:01:12 PM

I don't think he is "chasing votes" but even if he is, at least Reilly is chasing votes in Massachusetts. Of late, Romney's been chasing them in South Carolina.

Posted by: sco | Feb 14, 2005 2:31:17 PM

The link to Reilly's testimony persuades me (mostly) that Reilly is being sincere when he says he isn't a flipflopper on gay marriage. That said, under state law Reilly had the option of declining to defend the state's official anti-gay marriage position. But he didn't do it. I'm with Ernst on this one: I have yet to see any reason to think that Reilly has a shot at unseating Romney. Of course, recent events suggest Romney may unseat himself, which would be a most interesting development.

Posted by: David | Feb 23, 2005 12:32:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.