We need to also remember that the 1990s was also occurring at the zenith of AIDS hysteria. At the state legislature, we were fending off bills in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee which would have required the State to identify and quarantine gay men, regardless of whether or not they tested HIV-positive at the time (or "HTLV-positive," as it was known back then). I know it looks entirely silly and over the top in retrospect, but it was very real back then. These guys were serious.

The simple fact of the matter was that the very concept of gay marriage in the 1990s was considered not only outlandish but completely reprehensible by many people, including an awful lot of Democrats. Bans on gay marriage would never have ultimately become the law in 31 states, were it not a generally popular idea at the time. Suffice to say that a lot of those measures were passed with significant Democratic support.

Further, many of those measures were not only approved by popular vote, they often passed with decisive and at times overwhelming margins. Proposition 2 in your adopted state of Texas passed with 76% support from voters in 2005. In your former home state of Wisconsin, 60% of voters supported Referendum 1 in 2006. It was only 30 short months ago when a state's voters for the very first time finally rejected such a discriminatory ban on at the ballot box, in Minnesota in November 2012.

So, I think a little perspective is in order. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, it's become quite fashionable of late in Democratic circles for people to not only say that they support marriage equality, but to further claim that they've always done so. However, the statistical facts from the last 20 years clearly suggest otherwise -- or at the very least, that there existed a distinct apathy toward LGBT civil rights on the part of the majority.

(I will admit to retaining some ambivalence to the concept of gay marriage myself in the mid-'90s, until I saw what the religious right was ginning up in 1996-98. My own boss publicly opposed their amendment enshrining discrimination in our state constitution. He stood on principle and subsequently lost his seat over the issue, as did 12 other state legislators -- including one House Republican, Eve Glover Anderson, who opposed the ban and was gay-bashed by her Democratic opponent.)

Therefore, such statistics regarding support for gay-marriage bans would infer that a fair number of Bernie Sanders' supporters who are presently criticizing Mrs. Clinton for admitting to a change of heart on the issue of gay marriage, likely did the same thing themselves only fairly recently. But unlike her, they're not willing to acknowledge it publicly, which would lead me to question who's really engaging in political opportunism here.

I first noticed that use to describe the Sidney Coffeeshop shootings two years ago.  In the Sidney case, the "shrapnel" was traced to police bullets.

However, the hollow-point bullets are more prone to fragment or ricochet when they hit a hard object such as the concrete planters used at the popular tourist attraction as security barriers against terrorist attacks, studies show.

Six of the nine bystanders wounded on Friday were hit by shrapnel caused when the hollow bullets fragmented as they ricocheted off the planters, and three by bullets, police said.

I can understand why calling the bits of flying lead "shrapnel" would be preferred by police department spokespeople.

The temptation is to take the 20+ current leads in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, & Maryland--together with the large delegate trove--for granted.  My thinking self is in conflict with my emotional self, and will remain so until the end of April/thereabouts.  Because I've witnessed far too many campaigns & sports contests & such go a bit off the mark because the contestants focused too much on the big game/challenge ahead rather than the one at hand, my caution overtakes me. Thanks for indulging me.