“Marriage is the issue today. Anyone who opposes the marriage amendment is starting to understand that it is a death knell to the family movement. You cannot oppose it and expect the pro-family movement to support you.”
– former porn addict Phil Burress, head of Cincinnati’s Citizens for Community Values, letting DeWine know he’s on notice to fall in line — or else.

Like John McCain cozying up to Falwell on marriage for his ’08 bid, Ohio Senator Mike DeWine is worried about his re-election race and rounding up the wingnut vote and — gasp — flip-flopped — on his opposing position on both the Ohio and federal marriage amendments in 2004.

Was he for it before he was against it? Just wondering. I smell the flopsweat of desperation here; DeWine must feel the campaign of Dem Sherrod Brown breathing down his back. (The Columbus Dispatch):


Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine said yesterday that he will take a lead role in pushing for a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, at least in part to regain support from unhappy conservatives in his state.

…[T]he amendment is symbolically important to social conservatives across Ohio, many of whom were disappointed in 2004 when DeWine did not support an Ohio constitutional amendment to define marriage as solely a union of one man and one woman. That issue sparked a huge turnout of conservative voters who helped President Bush win re-election.

Although DeWine is expected to easily win the May Republican primary, he faces a stern challenge in November from Rep. Sherrod Brown, of Avon, the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate race. To prevail, DeWine will need a heavy turnout from conservatives, many of whom are unhappy with him on issues of same-sex marriage and curbing immigration.

Two years ago it was a completely different story coming out of DeWine’s pie hole. He had reservations about the amendment and said the time to discuss it was not “in the heat of a presidential campaign.” The big kahuna is that he actually said that he preferred to have the courts — whoops, woudn’t that be the activist judges — rule on state bans of same-sex marriage.

How’s he going to reconcile that little bit of business?

Hat tip, PageOneQ