After about a week of unsuccessful attempts to explain his confusing pro-life-but-actually-kind-of-pro-choice position on abortion, Herman Cain seems to have finally put the issue behind him. But then Christian Broadcasting Network reporter David Brody did something unfair on Saturday. He asked Cain about another topic that has been discussed endlessly for years and years:
David Brody: (In your Faith and Freedom speech) “You mentioned marriage as well so you’re also, just so I understand, you’re for a constitutional marriage amendment as well?”
Cain, somewhat evasively, doesn’t directly say that he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but he does seem to say that, because DOMA is under attack, an amendment is necessary. Cain admits that this represents a change in his position — he “used to believe that it could be just handled by the states.” What he doesn’t mention is that by “used to,” he means less than a week ago, on Meet the Press.
MR. GREGORY: Same sex marriage. Would you seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage?
MR. CAIN: I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro traditional marriage.
MR. GREGORY: But you would let the states make up their own mind as they’re doing now?
What happened between October 16 and October 22 that convinced Cain of the necessity for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? We all know what happened — after the outcry over his abortion remarks, Cain felt the need to shore up his standing with social conservatives. It’s just more evidence that all of Cain’s positions are soft and malleable, and liable to transform from one day to the next, like a slice of Godfather’s pizza left out in the sun.