Anybody who has a question about how Mike McGavick would vote on divisive social issues, take a gander at today’s Kitsap Sun:
He said he’d prefer that states handle the gay marriage issue, but if courts continue to require it be allowed in some places, he’d then vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Um… the states are handling the issue; all of the court decisions he’s referring to (like the one pending here in WA state) are state court decisions. So what he’s really saying is that if the state legislatures don’t outright ban gay marriage, and the state courts continue to uphold it, then he would vote for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
That’s right, Mike McGavick wants to amend the Constitution of the United States to actively deny rights to a class of citizens.
Just thought you’d all want to know.