It does rather depend on whether politicians are there to enact whatever they want, or to enact the will of the people, and what they should do where those two don’t align. You probably wouldn’t consider it immoral for someone who doesn’t drive to vote one way or another on a roadbuilding project, or for someone without kids to vote on a school project.
So I don’t see why it should be a problem for a politician who privately supports a particular topic but represents people who don’t, to vote against it; it means they’re doing what they were elected to do and not acting solely in their own interests.
That’s all well and good but this is talking about gay marriage which is a topic with completely different context and importance than building roads or schools
No no, I find this completely believable. It’s like lacking a consistent moral system is a requirement for being conservative.
It does rather depend on whether politicians are there to enact whatever they want, or to enact the will of the people, and what they should do where those two don’t align. You probably wouldn’t consider it immoral for someone who doesn’t drive to vote one way or another on a roadbuilding project, or for someone without kids to vote on a school project.
So I don’t see why it should be a problem for a politician who privately supports a particular topic but represents people who don’t, to vote against it; it means they’re doing what they were elected to do and not acting solely in their own interests.
That’s all well and good but this is talking about gay marriage which is a topic with completely different context and importance than building roads or schools
go figure a lot of them depend on religion to tell them what’s moral and not