wack wack wrote:So it was a matter of politics, not bigotry.
What a sad display of backflippery this is.
Try this from another direction: one might argue that George Wallace's segregationism
was a matter of politics, not bigotry. Should his discriminatory actions be dismissed, as you have dismissed those of Mrs. Clinton? Did his political motivations make it somehow easier for those on the receiving end of his discrimination?
Of course, by calling it "backflippery" you have evidence of Clinton going back and forth and back again, right? Linear development does not constitute "backflippery." For the record, I don't accuse Portman of "backflippery" either, just a dangerous inability to see beyond himself.
Let's not forgot, as Meade so kindly pointed out, at the point where Ms. Clinton "opposed" gay marriage, she supported civil unions affording committed gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Discriminatory in name, perhaps, but not much more.
One who might argue that George Wallace's "segregationism" was a matter of politics has not properly researched George Wallace.
The willful disregard for the differences in path to discovery for Clinton and Portman is a statement about the person assessing the situation, not a statement on Clinton or Portman.