Karen Mueller, a lawyer who is seeking the Republican nomination for Wisconsin ‘s third district congressional seat, is committed to fighting against marriage equality, based on her expert opinion that gay weddings will lead to sibling-to-sibling marriage. Yes, you read that correctly;  she believes that marriage equality laws will open a can of worms that will bring siblings who want to marry into court, demanding that incest laws be overturned.

“We’ve got, for instance, two sisters, and these two sisters want to get married. They love each other. They are committed to each other. They want to spend the rest of their life together,” she explained at a candidate forum last Tuesday.  She also says that repealing sodomy laws could lead to incestuous marriages as well.

Although she holds strong opinions on gay marriage, nobody should take that as an indifference to marriage rights or discrimination against LGBT individuals, right? After all, “They can get married,” she explained. “They just can’t get married to each other.”

Ms. Mueller’s law practice is described as specializing in “Constitutional law” and claims bragging rights to a far right, anti-choice, pro- “religious freedom” agenda, including petitioning Attorney General Van Hollen to investigate the University of Wisconsin Hospital Clinics Authority (UWHCA) for providing second trimester abortions. She has also taught Sunday school classes on “the relatedness of the Law and the Bible.”

The winner of the Republican primary will be decided on August 12. The winner will face off against incumbent Democrat Ron Kind in the general election November 4.

  • Theo McKinney

    ON SIBLINGS MARRYING SIBLINGS:

    The only government purpose of recognizing marriages, is to officially consolidate 2 unrelated law-abiding households into a single family unit.

    Oh, but to see why this tired old red-herring was dried up and gray before it even got out of its antigay agenda box!:

    Siblings are **already** considered ‘family’ from the day they were born; therefore any further recognition of their family status is purely redundant, and specifically not required, as these folks are born with the classification of being “recognized family members”.

    Which is precisely why no one is seeing additional sibling marriage rights talked about by anyone but inhumane antigays with a bizarre grudge they have yet to explain to anyone coherently.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to debunk the antigay drivel that the antigay have left to ‘defend” the indefensible.

    Meanwhile “constitutional” marriage bans keep getting stricken as irrational, too.

    Happens a lot with today’s antigay remaining.

    Just sayin’.

    • Emmette Coleman

      The biggest problem with that argument is that siblings do not have the same rights as a married couple. If siblings did have the same rights as a married couple, I’d mostly agree with your argument, but they don’t. If the concern is equal rights, then the fact that siblings are already family is irrelevant; “family” is not the same thing as equal rights.

      Another thing is, a marriage is not an agreement between two households, it’s an agreement between two individuals. The purpose of recognizing marriages is not to to officially consolidate two households, it’s to officially consolidate two individuals.