Was Hillary Clinton just being shrewd in supporting gay marriage?

It is well known that B.J. and Hillary Clinton did not support gay marriage only until recently when it seems that the entire country was alas on the right side of history.

And there are many who believe that Hilldog and B.J. only came out for gay marriage because it was politically safe and feasible. In other words the Clintons were being shrewd politicians! Oh. My. God. I am. Completely. Utterly. Surprised.

If you have at least a couple of brain cells you would know that shrewd politicians like the Clintons and Obama are very calculating (I mean check out the 2008 democratic primary race to see what I mean). But then there are the reality virgins who deny all this, saying "say it ain't so Hillary!" One can only shake our heads in embarrassment knowing that there exist gullible people who actually believe that these national politicians have any morals and consistent principles.

Oh but don't you dare confront Hilldog about it. Listen as she lashes out at this NPR host for alluding to her political sleaziness:

I'm not saying that Hilldog should be held liable for her previous opposition to gay marriage. In fact many people genuinely changed their minds and that's all for the better. I do though tend to believe that Hilldog doesn't really care about gay marriage until it has become the new civil rights issue of our time. She might as well have supported gay marriage all this time (like Obama) and only voiced opposition to escape the heat of the moment. Hilldog's political ambitions made her more concerned about calculating her next move than the importance of equal rights for us homos, and I highly doubt that this character is well suited for being the Democrat nominee for president. But again, that's just me. Politics is not about honesty but style, so don't expect anything more than that.

Non-country Kyrgyzstan wants to be like big Papa Russia and bans 'gay propaganda'

A non-country named Kyrgyzstan is trying to impress Putin and piss off the west by imposing a much more sweeping bill that bans "gay propaganda" whatever the fuck that means: 

A Kyrgyzstan human rights group has passed a ‘gay propaganda’ bill in parliament.
The bill, similar to Russia’s own anti-gay law, will make it illegal to spread information about ‘non-traditional sexual relations’ in the former Soviet country.
This means it will be a crime for anyone to discuss anything related to LGBTI people in public spaces either through the media, or by organizing public events to discuss human rights.

Two issues: Again where the fuck is this dumb country and, Two: Again how can you prove intent with these kinds of laws?

Not only are these kinds of laws fucking horrendous and oppressive but are severely badly crafted. A seven year old Afghan boy with crayons could have drafted better legislation. If the intent is to prevent kiddies from being exposed to gay materials then the law must be narrowly tailored for that specific purpose. In other words you must prove intent. Proving intent is a very basic fundamental pillar of lawmaking that goes back to Roman Law and English common law. Without this the law can become meaningless by either being unenforceable (that is going in Russia actually) or too broad that it can affect a huge swath of the population who do not intend on braking the premise of the law (hence why Putin had to stay the Russian propaganda law during the Olympics in order to extinguish fears that the law is too broad).

If Putin and this other country were any smart (and they are not most of the times) they would have made sure that these laws actually contain strong definitions of intent, meaning that if someone actually gave gay propaganda literature (and not just a rainbow but actual materials that promote being gay) to an actual minor then the law would be much more clearer and even would have less of impact against gays. I don't know about your but I certainly never read a book or a pamphlet that tells kids how to go gay, how to give good blowjobs or how to have buttsecks, so prosecuting for such a "crime" would be a totally impossible nightmare for already incompetent Russian prosecutors and prosecutors of wannabe countries like Kyrgyzstan.

Arizona governor says state should consider banning anti-gay discrimination

After vetoing a bill that would have allowed for religious anarchy (but mainly Christian Sharia) in which bigots who want to discriminate against gays were going to be protected, Governor Skeletor of Arizona came to her senses once again:

“I do not believe in discrimination,” the governor told Capitol Media Services Tuesday. “We are in the United States of America and we have great privilege that is afforded to everyone.” 

But the governor conceded that, while existing state laws bar discrimination based on race, religion or gender, those do not extend to sexual orientation. Brewer said it may be worth exploring whether the time has come to change that.

Its simple, if you do not believe in discrimination and you do not want it practiced in your state in which would cause more national embarrassment as not only a racist state, but anti-gay bigot state, then by all means woman, fucking ban it then.

Just as she stood up to the tea crazies on Medicaid expansion (which greatly helped the state)and on the religious anarchy bill, she too can stand up to them on this issue. But my experience as a resident of this horrid state is that people actually are totally oblivious, in fact many who oppose anti-discrimination laws cite the fact that gay discrimination doesn't really exist. If that were the case, then lets repeal the anti-discrimination laws on race being that racial discrimination is far less frequent than anti-gay discrimination. But lets see them try and do that.

I'm not leaving Arizona just yet for familial reason, but for me there are bigger issues than the fact that the state lacks an anti-discrimination law that are pushing me out.