Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

The Gay Marriage Pander

For someone who has been in politics as long as Martin O’Malley one would think that he’d have developed some skill in pandering. That doesn’t seem to be the case:

Mr. O”Malley, a Democrat, seemed to support civil unions last week, although his stance has shifted depending on who he is talking to.

“I believe civil unions is an idea around which we can forge a consensus,” Mr. O”Malley said during a Thursday appearance on the “Kojo Nnamdi Show” on WAMU-FM (88.5 FM). Mr. O”Malley went on to acknowledge that some people were “disappointed that I don”t use the word ‘marriage.” “

But a week earlier, in an Oct. 5 interview with the Washington Blade, Mr. O”Malley was quoted as saying he would be open to signing a bill extending marriage rights to homosexuals, as long as it contained a provision exempting religious institutions.

“Without infringing on anyone”s faith, that would be a law I should sign,” Mr. O”Malley told the paper, which is aimed at the D.C. area”s homosexual community.

Pandering is demeaning to all concerned. It is more demeaning when no apparent attempt is made to reconcile different versions of the pander made to different audiences. In a way this is a metaphor for what we’ve seen of the O’Malley administration thus far. From the crooked land deals to the ludicrous tax increase road show, O’Malley seems totally unconcerned with peddling a wide variety of stories within hearing distance of different audiences.

Obviously, he thinks we’re stupid. But this is the side effect of being covered by stump trained reporters working for a tame newspaper that is little more than a party organ. More of this will be evident as the special session becomes imminent.






Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend