Same-sex marriage questions for Patty WetterlingPosted by Craig Westover | 8:43 PM |
From Eric Black’s Strib story on the NRCC fliers criticizing Patty Wetterling --
The second side of one of the NRCC fliers says that Wetterling would vote against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That accurately states her position. Wetterling says she does not favor legalizing gay marriage, but does not support a federal constitutional amendment on the topic.That’s a stance that bothers me when coming from a Democrat. Why does Wetterling not favor legalized same-sex marriage? There is a legitimate argument, (not supported in my view) that it would prove disruptive to society, which is the practical side (or fear-mongering side depending on your point of view) of Bachmann’s position. Does Wetterling agree with Bachmann that same-sex marriage would be bad for society?
The other (in my opinion politically invalid) reason for opposing the legalization for same-sex marriage is the moral argument. It’s perfectly legitimate for someone to hold that homosexuality is immoral for Biblical or other reasons, but the essence of a free society is that sometimes people do immoral things that aren’t illegal or that government has no business making illegal. Does Wetterling believe homosexuality is immoral and same-sex couples do not deserve to be married?
Aside from the constitutional issue, it seems Wetterling and Bachmann have the same position -- same-sex couples shouldn't marry. Morally, what is the difference between discriminating against same-sex couples in the constitution or discriminating against them in the law?
Personally I don’t give a damn what she thinks, but I am very curious about how she reasons her way to the position that she holds -- opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. Understanding how she gets there says a lot about how she’d handle tough issues that demand a principled, uncompromising and unpopular stance.