McConnell votes against protecting interracial marriage. Even though he's in one.

Ever heard the saying, "Do what I say - not what I do?"

Can't wrap my head around this one. Although it's right in line with the party of "freedom."

(Newsweek - 11/17) - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against legislation that would protect interracial marriages on Wednesday, despite the fact that he's married to an Asian American woman.

McConnell, who is white, is the husband of former U.S. Secretary for Transportation Elaine Chao, the first woman of Asian heritage to be appointed to a presidential cabinet.

The Kentucky Republican was one of 37 GOP senators who opposed a motion to advance on the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), but the procedural vote succeeded with a bipartisan majority of 62, with one senator not voting.

The Senate is divided, with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, but the vote means that formal debate could take place on the legislation, while the Senate could pass the bill as early as Thursday.

DrWatson · 70-79, M

The same bill would protect same-sex marriage. Some commentators have surmised that McConnell voted against the bill for that reason, and that makes sense to me.

In general, a bill before congress has many provisions. When a member of congress votes against a bill because of one provision, it is typical for political opponents to point out a different, uncontroversial, provision in the same bill and say "look who voted against this!"

Liberals have been victims of this kind of misleading attack just as much as conservatives have. Famously, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin once voted against her own bill, because of the amendments that had been tacked on. But of course her election opponent didn't go into all that when he attacked her for what she supposedly was "against" when she voted no.

DrWatson · 70-79, M

@Ynotisay I agree that it does not negate the vote.

I am no fan of Mitch McConnel, but I will reserve criticism of him for what I consider to be valid reasons. To be fair to him, I do not think it is valid to call him a hypocrite for being in an interracial marriage and then "voting against it." (And that is what many are doing right now.)

Heck, there are plenty of real reasons to be annoyed with the guy. We don't need to invent phony ones.

Ynotisay · M

@DrWatson But he did vote against it. Interracial marriage is part of the bill. As it should be. And sorry but if his defense is "I had to vote against it because it codifies gay marriage" I'm not sure that's the greatest defense. I personally think it's sick and twisted. And that's outside of the 'freedom' argument. I'm glad reporters are pointing it out. I want to hear him explain his vote. Haven't seen it yet.