You may recall Li'l Ricky Santorum who so famously worried about man-on-dog action as his pretext to deny gay people their civil rights and liberties:
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.
...but he seems to be striking a more nuanced note these days:
Let me first define what we are not talking about. I believe if two adults of the same sex want to have a relationship that is their business. But when they ask society to give that relationship special recognition and privileges, then we should be able to have a rational debate about whether that is good public policy.
This does not mean that he has changed at all, he just says we can debate it. There are those who say he has mellowed, but I think he finally drank the Woolite.