One of the things we “learned” this week is that gubernatorial hopeful Rob McKenna is against same-sex marriage.
On Wednesday, McKenna told KCPQ-TV (3:47):
I will vote to maintain the current law and the current definition of marriage.
I guess he has given up on the line, “I hold the same views as President Obama.”
Goldy wrote about this under the headline, “McKenna Finally Admits He Opposes Gay Marriage”. But is McKenna only now admitting he opposes same-sex marriage?
I mentioned last June that McKenna has previously taken a stand on the subject:
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.
One might argue that McKenna was only criticizing the wording of a ruling, rather than the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Closer scrutiny reveals that as bullshit. I encourage you to read the ruling for yourself—it’s well-written, and includes some amusing word play. Judge Downing:
…concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.
The ruling doesn’t “open up” incestuous or polygamous marriages. To do so, it would have addressed an additional set of state laws that are narrowly targeted to toward protecting compelling state interests in prohibition of incestuous or polygamous marriages. It didn’t touch on those at all.
No…what McKenna was doing was using a bullshit “legal-like” argument to express his opposition to same-sex marriage, while not quite saying so.
So, if the legislature allows gay marriage, will McKenna join a lawsuit to overturn it? His duty as A.G., of course, is to defend the state law. Would he offer a less-than vigerous defense, as he did with the case involving Goldmark?
Surprise! Surprise!
When did the AG get a vote in the legislature? I must have missed that bill.
As a youngish resident of King County and one that’s never, to my knowledge, worn his religion on his sleeve, I have to wonder if McKenna is really personally opposed to gay marriage or if his opposition is based on political strategy.
Michael,
He means as a citizen if or when it ends up as a referendum….
@5
It sounded to me like he was grandstanding for the bible toting, gun clutching, low information voters out there.
Wait. Is McKenna claiming that polygamy is some absolutely terrible family destroying and nation destroying practice?
Because there’s a certain Republican presidential candidate that comes from a long line of polygamists.
I don’t see how polygamy disrupted the Romney family values.
And I certainly don’t see how same-sex marriage impacts anybody but the people in the marriage.
There’s a Christian value I really wish more self proclaimed Christians would pay attention to and follow.
And why behold you the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?
@6 Michael,
It is funny you should mention low information voters. Seems the evil Kommunist nation on our border has produced something about that. No, not Cuba, Kanada!
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
@8
Yep, liberals tend to be both smarter and wealthier than conservatives.
There’s no reason to vote for Rob McKenna. He won’t do anything about our most pressing problem — tax reform. If anything, he’ll try to make the nation’s most regressive state tax system even more regressive. Ignoring tax reform was Gregoire’s greatest failing, and replacing her with McKenna would accomplish nothing.
Voting for McKenna is simply a vote for wingnut social policies that are out of touch with the majority of Washington voters. He would use the office of governor to obstruct or repeal policies that most Washingtonians favor. He would be a water boy for big business, which already has too much clout in Olympia.
We have serious education issues in Washington, but chances are good that McKenna would be another Scott Walker, who stripped $900 million from Wisconsin’s schools to give more tax breaks to the already-rich segment of society. It’s unlikely that voting for McKenna would help Washington’s schools get better, or create more spaces in our state universities for talented Washington students.
I just don’t see any reason at all to vote for Rob McKenna.
If you think keeping gays from marrying each other is the only thing that matters in our state, then go ahead and vote for Rob McKenna. There’s no other reason to vote for him.
@4 McKenna obviously is pandering to the bigot crowd. If you’re a politician, and you choose not to be a Democrat, this is what you have to do to get Republican votes.
It’s not to difficult for anyone of moderate intelligence to articulate reasons for the state prohibition against licensing incestuous or polygamous marriages that are rationally related to a legitimate or compelling state interest.
I’ll bet even Rob can do it (barely).
But there’s one thing he sure as hell can’t do. He can’t do the same for a state prohibition against licensing of same sex marriages. And that’s why he makes up bullshit sounding fake legalese to bamboozle the media. It sounds like legal reasoning. But it’s really just a bunch of sounds likely to be pleasing to the Ellen Craswell clique.
whats up with the crazy bitch who is marrying a building?
for someone who proclaims to be college educated, she sounds dumb as a fucking brick.
some people deserve to be broke and homeless, and I think she is one of them.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/138158504.html
I got $10 that says she votes D…..
@14 She’s a lot smarter than you are. The “wedding” is a publicity stunt to draw media attention to issues relating to city land use policies she believes aren’t serving the community as well as they should. She’s well informed about the topic and is articulate in stating what’s wrong with existing policies and what she thinks should happen in our neighborhoods. You’re not capable of anything except name calling, stereotyping, and ad hominem attacks. You’ve contributed absolutely nothing of any substance or value to the discussion she’s trying to start.
you think she is articulate?
HAHHAHAHHAHHHH…my fucking cat is more articulate than that broad….and apparently my cat is a lot smarter than you…..
My present cat isn’t particularly bright but my previous cat, Betty-Mabel, was certainly more articulate than some of the posters here. She swore like a sailor and had a least a dozen different ways of telling me to “fuck off”.
@17
sounds like a pretty typical cat to me, Steve.
I needed a good laugh so I watched her interview again…OMFG is this gal a dunce. Its no wonder the rabbit and other leftnuts have glommed onto her….
this gal is a poster child for lazy idiots.
@18 The rest of the cats I’ve had were pretty much typical. That Betty was something else.
Hey, I hope all is well!
@20
Things are going pretty well Steve. Work is busy and family is great.
Hope things are going good on your end.