State attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna, in not responding to , is a prime example of politicians who do not want the voters to know ahead of time what their positions will be on controversial issues. This type of behavior certainly serves the purposes of the politician, but certainly not the voters. For good measure toss in the standard evasive trick of attacking the questionnaire and what do we get? A perfect political cliché!
However, underlying McKenna’s exchange is a much, much larger and important question to be considered. How to deal politically with controversial questions that have no quantifiable answers to them but where people’s responses to them are based on personal beliefs? These personal beliefs may be based on religious training, personal life experiences or may be simply their own choice. Two controversial examples that most politicians shy away from giving their views on are early term abortion and gay marriage.
It absolutely is impossible to know if at the moment of conception there is a human being that needs protection by society. It is impossible. It is even more impossible to know if there is a “soul” present. That decision has to be left up to the individual to make as all other opinions are just that; “opinions based on beliefs.”
There are no valid secular arguments against gay marriage. Again the arguments against are “opinions based on beliefs.” Again that decision must be left up to the individual who is free to participate or not and to each church or religion to decide for themselves.
It is against the very concept of freedom, freedom that so many have died for in this country, to vote on beliefs. This brings me back to politicians. Any politician who wants to force his personal beliefs on others through the rule of law and take away their personal choice in decisions that are based on beliefs is not fit to be in office.
No one wants others to vote on their personal beliefs.