In 2004, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing issued a controversial ruling that same-sex couples could marry. The Seattle Times, sprung to action to find out where candidates in state-wide races stood:
…King County Councilman Rob McKenna, criticized the ruling’s wording as too broad and said its argument that there is no compelling state interest to deny marriage to two people in a committed relationship could leave marriage open to blood relatives or those practicing polygamy.
“It threatens to destroy all standards we apply to the right of marriage,” he said.
McKenna didn’t quite go as far as describing “man-on-dog” relationships, but the rest sure sounds like the nutty rhetoric of former Sen. Rick Santorum:
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. […] In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality — […]
The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that.
For what it is worth, the American Anthropological Association—you know, the folks who study humans and their cultures, cross-culturally and historically—take exception to both Santorum’s and McKenna’s narrow, conservative view of marriage and family:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
But back in 2004, McKenna could express his inner-Santorum because he had an easy out:
McKenna said that although he agrees with the Defense of Marriage Act, his personal opinions would not enter into how he argued a court case.
That was then…this is now. As Governor McKenna, Rob’s personal opinions would have a huge impact on the lives of Washingtonians. His opinion would help inform decisions to sign or veto bills and how the legislation is executed. He would have the bully pulpit for setting the legislative agenda.
We are on the journey to learn whether Washingtonians are ready and willing to put a little Santorum in the governor’s mansion.
(h/t)
Update: In which Stranger reporter and HorsesAss religion correspondent David (Goldy) Goldstein gets pissed on by the McKenna campaign.
Yep.
If you like what’s going on in Wisconsin, you’re gonna love Rob McKenna as governor.
Washington is better than McKenna. The self-aggrandizing dweeb needs to recognize the ambition that is at the heart of everything he does won’t take him any farther in this state. 2012 will not be his year. My, that would mean he might have to turn to the private sector for work; that’s not something Robbie is very familiar with.
Santorum thinks the state has a right to limit individuals’ wants and passions? Well then, why not apply that thinking to:
1. Businessmen who cheat their customers;
2. Mortgage brokers who lie about the loans they sell;
3. Hedge funds who lie about their leverage;
4. Banks who impose hidden fees and charges on their customers;
5. Food processors who sell half-empty packages;
6. CEOs and COOs who cook the books to make investors think their companies are making money when they’re losing money;
7. … you get my drift.
This sounds like an argument in favor of gummint regulation of less-than-flawless human behavior.
For what it is worth, the American Anthropological Association—you know, the folks who study humans and their cultures, cross-culturally and historically—take exception to both Santorum’s and McKenna’s narrow, conservative view of marriage and family:
—————————-
well, that should settle it, after all, science is science. Their scientific position on the Cuban trade embargo, for example, is right up there with quantum theory.
Americafirst @ 4,
You are pathetically underinformed. Neither the family/marriage statement nor the Cuba embargo statement are intended to be scientific treatises. Rather, they are policy statements. (Science has a very different mode of dissemination.)
Apparently you were confused by the family/marriage statement pointing out that the position is based on a “century of anthropological research.” The scholarship is available elsewhere…but I have my doubts that you have the intellectual capacity to find, read, and comprehend the thousands of relevant publications in the social science, biological science, and humanities literature….
What is with the politicians in this state? A lot of them have to let us know they were Eagle Scouts. I don’t see anything wrong with the scouts. I was one, but this weird thing about trying to impress us with being Eagle Scouts. I want to ask them why they didn’t join the Army, but I probably know the answer to that one.
@5. Darryl spews:
Americafirst @ 4,
You are pathetically underinformed. Neither the family/marriage statement nor the Cuba embargo statement are intended to be scientific treatises. Rather, they are policy statements. (Science has a very different mode of dissemination.)
————————
no kidding, they weren’t intended to be scientific treatises? It sure looks like a lot of scientific research went into them. Thanks for explaining that.
@6
That is odd, isn’t it. Being an Eagle Scout is a cool thing and an honor, but it’s something for a 17 or 18 year old. I’m much more concerned about what they’ve done lately.
Americafirst,
“no kidding, they weren’t intended to be scientific treatises?”
They weren’t
“It sure looks like a lot of scientific research went into them.”
You are wrong for one and correct for another. The Cuba embargo statement is a pure policy statement. It doesn’t cite research. It doesn’t require research. It is purely a statement from the membership to policy-makers and politicians. The family/marriage statement is also a policy statement. This one WAS informed by a huge body of research and scholarship in social and biological sciences and humanities.
You earn a grade of 50%.
“Thanks for explaining that.”
My pleasure!
8,
I’ve known way too many Eagle Scouts who became anal, judgmental people who really don’t add much as they age. Citing Eagle Scoutdom when older is not a good thing, in my book. In fact, ah . . . I’m not going to go there.
@10
That’s kinda my point. It’s something you cite when you’re 17 and applying for college. It’s not something you use at 48.
11,
Indeed. I was a helluva banjo player at 17. Not so much, anymore. My curriculum vitae no longer cites high school achievements. McKenna’s CV is built on what he thought he’d become, because of his ambition, but not what he really is. He is a career politician. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought that the GOP didn’t like those kind of people.
That’s a really good way to put it.
I’m an Eagle Scout = dogwhistle to “his base”:
Is McKenna “on the record” one way or another on gay marriage? If not, why not?