In a biting, albeit somewhat overly-sarcastic piece yesterday, Alex Pareene wrote on Salon that:
[MN Gov. Tim] Pawlenty announced his plan to veto a bill providing same-sex couples with the same end-of-life rights as married heterosexual couples.
It's not a gay marriage bill. It's not even a civil unions bill. It directly addresses specific legal inequities without making religious people feel too "gross" about men kissing each other or stealing the word "marriage" or whatever. Only a tremendous asshole would veto this bill.
Pawlenty says he'll veto the bill because "there is no actual need for this," and he says signing this bill extending civil rights without harming anyone would simply "stoke up a political controversy on a hot-button issue."
That's not an ideological opposition to gay marriage (which really has very little logical basis to begin with), that's just a lack of compassion. No matter how much gay marriage upsets your sense of morals or religious beliefs, shouldn't it be a given that someone at the end of their life should be afforded the comfort of being with the people he or she loves and knowing they'll be taken care of in the future? Call me naive, but I was under the impression that we were supposed to show compassion even to the people we disagreed with.
Tim Pawlenty may score some political points with the uncaring, bigoted fringe of the Right, but it'd be nice to see a politician do the compassionate thing once in a while, despite the pollsters' advice.
Tim Pawlenty may score some political points with the uncaring, bigoted fringe of the Right, but it'd be nice to see a politician do the compassionate thing once in a while, despite the pollsters' advice.
1 comment:
Agreed.
Although I haven't read the bill, it sounds like its purpose is to do nothing more than promote some end-of-life comfort. Pawlenty's veto comes across simply as cowardly and mean. This reflexive pandering to social conservatives exhibited by more and more Republican politicians is pretty disgusting.
Post a Comment