Shannon and gay marriages: So Shannon O’Brien has announced she’s in favor of gay-marriage legislation if, if, if, if, if if ... You get the picture. On the surface, her stand is laudable. Gay marriages are going to happen. And so be it. They’re better than those proposed civil-union non-marriages marriages, which, as people like Andrew Sullivan have pointed out, will likely/actually lead to a breakdown in traditional marriages, as straight couples opt in favor of civil unions instead of old-fashioned marriages, similar to what has happened in Europe. (Ah, the old ‘unintended consequences’ factor!) But here are some points to remember about Shannon’s not-so-brave stand:

-- She’s still flip-flopping on the issue, saying she’d sign a gay-marriage bill but prefers the civil-union route. ''I would support a marriage piece of legislation, but I think that the fight needs to focus on civil unions because I think it is one that we can win,'' she said.
-- She clearly won’t push for gay-marriage legislation on Beacon Hill. (See above quote and other power-politics disclaimers in her statements.)
-- She’s clearly trying to shore up her liberal base of support, going after the Robert Reich vote. (Note to Reader No. 1: Maybe she IS a little scared of Jill Stein?)
-- She’s clearly -- very clearly -- playing the religion card against Mitt Romney, even though she promised not to bring up Mitt’s religion in the race.

All of which shows: Shannon O’Brien will do and say just about anything to get elected.   ¶ 7:32 AM