Guv should better explain opposition to gay marriage

In celebration of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign released a statement today saying America is “in the midst of a difficult struggle for basic human rights.”

“This month is a worthy symbol of our progress towards full civil rights for every American, but we cannot ignore the challenges we still must conquer before we can truly move forward and create a better society,” Richardson said.

He then highlighted his own record of opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” expanding anti-discrimination laws in New Mexico and providing state health insurance to domestic partners.

“As president, I will not rest until we have fulfilled America’s most basic promise – that every human being is created equal and that every American is due certain basic, inalienable rights,” Richardson said in the release. “I know that until the human rights of every American are guaranteed, the rights of all Americans are demeaned.”

Without taking a position on gay marriage, I want to point out what I see as an inconsistency. I don’t understand how the statement Richardson put out today, similar to those he’s made before, jives with his opposition to gay marriage and his explanation: “I’m just not there yet. I’m a Catholic. I think marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Will the GLBT community let him have it both ways on this one because he pays attention to them and could help them gain expanded rights in other areas? Or will they question his inconsistencies and force him to explain this seeming contradiction?

Why doesn’t “full civil rights for every American” include the right to marry whoever you want, as long as you’re both adults who can legally make such a decision? I’d love to hear Richardson give a better explanation than “I’m a Catholic” – one that indicates intelligence and a reasoned opinion on this difficult issue.