Lucy logic

Lucy Baxley was on APT's For the Record Monday. In one segment of the interview, FTR host Tim Lennox asked Mrs. Baxley about her positions on abortion and the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Here's a transcript of that exchange (the entire interview can be viewed online here):

Lennox: In addition to voting for yourself and others on the ballot this June 6, there is also a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state, or would define marriage as between one man and one woman. When you go into the Democratic primary ballot box, and I presume vote for yourself, how will you vote on that amendment?

Baxley: Well, first of all, I think you shouldn't ask anybody about their vote on anything. It's a personal, private matter, but let me tell you what my position is on it. I believe - and this is based on my views and my upbringing and my Methodist training - I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those are my views, and I hold them. I believe them firmly. However, I also believe that my same Bible teaches me that you don't mistreat people who might not have your views or might, for some reason, be different from you. And so therefore, I firmly believe in my views the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I think my Bible teaches me it is a sin to want harm to come to people who have a different lifestyle.

Lennox: So again, do you support or oppose the amendment?

Baxley: I support marriage being between a man and a woman, and I will vote my convictions when I go into the polling place, and that's my answer.

Lennox: When you were on For the Record last May[...], this is what you said [...] in relation to a question about abortion. You said, "God didn't send me here to pass judgment on other people and their choices on what they do in their life. I think when the Bible says, 'Judge not, that you shall not be judged, I factor that into it.'" What's the difference? Why that attitude toward abortion, but the other attitude toward this amendment?

Baxley: Well, no, no, that's not different. Abortion for me is wrong. Abortion for me is wrong. For me, and my life, and my choices I make, and the decisions I make for which I answer to my God - for me, it's wrong. But by the same token, other people who are operating within the realm of what is legal - for what is legal for them to do - that decision - the same way, to me - is their personal choices about their life and how they answer to their God.

Lennox: Just so I'm really clear on this: so again, you are in favor of the amendment? Do you support the amendment?

Baxley: An amendment on abortion?

Lennox: No, do you support the amendment that will be voted on on the sixth of June related to marriage? You support the amendment or do not support the amendment?

Baxley: I support the amendment, because it's already the law. It doesn't change anything. It's interesting to me that people feel like they have changed something by the amendment, but really it has come down to "Do you or do you not support gay marriage?" And to me, the life of a gay person is not changed one iota by whether or not that amendment passes.

Here are a few observations about Mrs. Baxley's responses:

1. That Mrs. Baxley admonished Lennox for asking how she would vote on the same-sex marriage amendment was a little odd, I thought. I mean, she is running for Governor, and it was a very relevant question. She went on to say that she supports the amendment (although whether she intends to vote for it is still unknown), but Lennox had to ask her three times before he was able to get a definite response.
2. Mrs. Baxley's argument for supporting the marriage amendment is actually the best argument against it. She said, "I support the amendment, because it's already the law. It doesn't change anything." Now, if there's already a law on the books that addresses this issue (which there is), and the proposed constitutional amendment wouldn't change anything, then why does Mrs. Baxley support it? Why would she favor littering the Alabama constitution with another amendment, especially if she believes that amendment to be superfluous? A better response would have been: "Without this amendment, judges or a future legislature might impose same-sex marriage on Alabama. I want to prevent that from happening." That argument invites a different set of objections, but at least it is logical.
3. Mrs. Baxley's response on abortion was even more unsatisfying. She takes a popular pro-choice position: For me, it's wrong; for others, it's a matter to be determined by their own moral consciences. I'm curious how far Mrs. Baxley would take that line of reasoning. For instance, the practical result of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion is that abortion on demand is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Does Mrs. Baxley think that is acceptable? If not, where would she draw the line? Perhaps in a future interview, Mrs. Baxley will have a chance to clarify her position. Until then, all of us - pro-choice, pro-life, and in-between - can only wait and wonder.