MA Gov: Reilly switches(?) on Marriage Equality

A sign of shifting political winds, or a change of conscience (or, more probably, a combination of the two)?  Massachusetts Attorney General and "unannounced candidate for Governor" Tom Reilly has declared his support for marriage equality:

After playing a key role in the efforts to fight legalization of gay marriage a year ago, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said yesterday that he now favors allowing legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and that he will oppose any efforts to ban them.

There's a little bit less here than meets the eye, though:

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.

The line about not taking rights away once they've been gained is not new.  He's been using that since the ConCon last year.  I've also seen him say it in interviews.  I've seen him previously say that he would vote against the amendment (or another version) currently before the General Court.  He's been finessing whether the leg. should pass it, just  saying he'd vote against it for a while now.  He's retaining the "personally oppose marriage but support civil unions" line.  In other words, I'm not seeing much of a change in already stated opinions.  This does seem more about public relations and attempts to "get right" with gay politicos.

That's not stopping the Republicans, though...flip-flop, flip-flop.

It's also not convincing gay activists.  He's not too popular in gay political circles:

Yesterday, Reilly's statements seemed to do little to placate his critics in the gay community. Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that she found it disturbing that Reilly would not oppose an effort to place what she says is a civil rights issue on the ballot.

''If he is now saying that he doesn't believe our rights should be taken away, we welcome that, but we need someone who would play a leadership role in this debate and stand up and say . . . that a civil rights question should not be placed on the ballot," she said.

Susan Ryan-Vollmar, editor of Bay Windows, New England's largest gay and lesbian newspaper, said members of the state's gay and lesbian communities remain ''furious" with Reilly. ''From my conversations and from the feedback my reporters are getting, there is real resentment out there," Ryan-Vollmar said. ''When the subject comes up of Reilly running for governor, it runs from 'over my dead body' to 'he is going to have to really grovel.' "

As he ramps up his campaign for next year's governor's race, Reilly is actively seeking meetings with gay and lesbian leaders, hoping he can calm some of the anger that has been directed at him. The former Democratic National Committee chairman, Steve Grossman, is trying to set up meetings at his Newton home for Reilly and the state's gay leadership.

Gonna be an interesting couple of years.

•  Thanks Jeff

  but this diary isn't on Gannon, so I'm not interested.

  </snark>

  by Plutonium Page on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:06:57 AM PDT

  •  Why all the Gannon snark Page?

    I'm getting kind of irked with your snark about Gannon on non-Gannon related diaries.

    Yes, for a while Gannon took over the Recommended list, but that seems to have settled down a bit and will eventually move to its own site.  

    This isn't like the "Ohio Fraud" diaries.  There is some actual there there and we keep digging for more.  I just don't see the need for you to snark on it in every non-Gannon related diary.

    by mlk on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 08:31:09 AM PDT

•  Lots of Minds Seem

  to be changing.  Reilly wants to be governor, so it is particulary encouraging that he is confident enough to differentiate himself from Romney in this manner.

  Who knows what he really believes, but he senses the political winds and he is responding accordingly.

  Isn't it also interesting that the military appears to have engaged in a quiet policy shift as well?

  by erickh on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:07:33 AM PDT

  •  Wow

    That's really cool (I just read the article you referenced in your blog).

    You should do a diary on that.

    by Plutonium Page on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:09:24 AM PDT

    •  I Haven't Done

      a diary yet.  Maybe I should.

      Thanks!

      by erickh on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:13:12 AM PDT

•  i'm impressed by this

  the way reilly phrased it is a bit compelling- as a matter of fundamental civil rights. it's almost impossible to back down from this later. it's important for people to be able to genuinely change their minds, and to accomodate their constituecies in their public actions.

  by heterodoxy on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:16:09 AM PDT

•  And Romney is moving

  further to the right, on stem cell research and who knows what else. I wonder about what might happen if progressives refuse to vote for either candidate. I'd hate to see 4 more years of Romney.

  by JamesB3 on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:16:20 AM PDT

  •  And

    Romney is having problems with that move to the right, as the Boston Herald points out. The right wing isnt buying it, it seems. And that move could hurt him in MA, especially with their excellent research facilities and all. He really doesnt belong as Gov of MA, maybe Utah, but not MA.

    by jj32 on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 08:09:40 AM PDT

•  It's getting interesting here in the land of

  superior professional sports teams.

  I'm sure Reilly will straighten out eventually. It's still early.

  Mitt, with his stem-cell comments, sure looks like a desperate man who knows he hasn't done much to pad his resume for when he runs for prez in 2008. He's become rather silly, dontcha think?

  by swinginvoter on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:18:07 AM PDT

  •  I wondered if his reasoning was

    to get the support of the conservative Catholic Dems who are presumably still important in winning statewide. It sounds like he is going to run on a "Democrats are liberal crazies who have sold you out" platform.

    by JamesB3 on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:33:47 AM PDT

•  Reillly

      Same old, same old for the Mass. Democrats. Been going on for the 30 years I've lived here. The party's totally split between the regulars, who're Irish-Italian old boys or gals, and the more liberal wing, who are produced by the hospital-university-technology community.
       Liberal pols of talent gravitate towards national offices (Kerry, Barney Frank, et. al.). The regulars like state offices. They equal jobs.
       This allows Republicans to run for governor as "reform" candidates. Romney ran as one after the GOP had held the corner office for 12 years!
       When the liberals run for governor, the regulars stab them in the back. When the regulars run, normal, non-ideological voters see them as stiffs, crooked stiffs at that.
       Reilly's a stiff. He's not a bad guy, but if he has any devoted followers besides his family and those on the AG's payroll, I'd be shocked.
       All Mass.Dems want to take Romney down-badly. As we saw last November, that's not enough. Help me out Kossacks. Can you name a candidate for governor, any candidate, regular or liberal, who won't put people into a coma before election day?

  by JMG on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:45:49 AM PDT

  •  Some conversation

    the other day.  Of course, Reilly is the front runner, with Galvin hanging around for now.  Quite a few of us were disappointed when Capuano decided not to run.  Several people are intrigued by moves Deaval Patrick has been making.

    by MAJeff on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 08:37:43 AM PDT

•  Mitt's not in touch with reality

  I love Repubs who are pro-choice and think they can win the Repub nomination.  What planet they from?  The Repubs just put in a social reactionary for the past 2 elections---you think they're going to replace him with a moderate?  Why?  

  Also, Romney's Mormon.  Not sure how that would play with the born-agains.  

  I also hope gay rights groups don't push Reilly too hard on same-sex marriage---he's said he supports it, and he's certainly way, way more supportive than Romney.  

  And its great to see the debate moving this way.  My test on this issue was the "my parents" test.  Both were opposed to same-sex marriage.  My mom came around when she saw a story about some of the couples getting married after being together for 15 or more years and found herself crying with joy.  My dad now is neutral, still finds it "odd" , but comments "as long as they oppose Bush, I can  accept giving them marriage."  I feel like the whole state is moving in that direction, and in 10 years people will be saying "why were people opposed to this?"

  by bosdcla14 on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:52:49 AM PDT

  •  any port in a storm

    It'll play fine with born-agains, so long as they can demonize the heathen (all together, now!).  Look at modern creationism: it's basically a hundred year old product of Seventh-Day Adventism, a sect that most fundamentalists and evangelicals consider apostacy.  But they've erased the tracks for convenience.  Similarly, Romney's 'extrabiblical' viewpoint will be ignored so long as they are aligned on social issues.

    by fightcentristbias on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:03:47 AM PDT

•  But they're not

  aligned on social issues.  Romney's pro-choice---or at least he has been in MA.  It'll be tough to explain away.

  I'd actually be interested in seeing Kerry become Governor, although, yes I know, that won't happen.  

  by bosdcla14 on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 07:23:02 AM PDT