Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney charges it's "disingenuous" of Sen. John McCain to think (1) gay marriage is a bad idea and (2) the issue should be left to the states (not a federal constitutional amendment). This, says Romney, is "having it both ways." Morality trumps federalism. I disagree, but it's a coherent position.
But wait. Mitt Romney opposes abortion. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," he wrote in 2005. So does he call for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? Umm...actually, abortion should be left to the states. From the same article:
The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
So there's room for moral variance on whether to slaughter unborn children, but not on whether to marry gay couples.
Romney isn't the only social conservative whose inconsistency on gay marriage and abortion is glaring, but he isn't just anyone. He's a leading contender for president and, apparently, the leading bidder for the "values vote."
So here's the question John McCain needs to put to Mitt Romney: "Mitt, if I'm wrong on gay marriage, how can you be right on abortion?" When Romney ducks, here's the follow-up: "Would you like to see the Constitution amended to ban abortion throughout the country, and will you fight for that if elected president? Yes or no." We're waiting, Governor.