Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Rob McKenna--Confusion Over Same-Sex Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

There seems to be some confusion over what Rob McKenna believes and does not believe about same-sex marriage.

Last week, Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz sent out an email that read, "Rob McKenna believes that same-sex couples don't deserve equal rights. In fact, he has fought to preserve discrimination in state law and has even gone so far as to equate marriage equality to polygamy and incest."

So the Attorney General believes that redefining marriage is a slippery slope.

I agree.

But wait.

Randy Peoples, McKenna's campaign manager says, no, he was only talking about a specific judicial ruling that was too broad and would have effectively removed any definition of marriage.

But if the definition of marriage discriminates against anyone isn't that discriminating.

Of course it is. That's why this same-sex legislation is not "marriage equality," it's "special rights."

The Seattle Times got hold of the email and Susan Kelleher looked into it.

It seems Pelz's claim was rooted in a 2004 newspaper article that was published just after the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ---which allows marriage only between a man and a woman---was found unconstitutional by Judge William Downing, a King County Superior Court judge.

You will recall that the State Supreme Court later overturned Downing's ruling and ruled that DOMA was constitutional.

McKenna, who was running for Attorney General at the time, was addressing the wording of the judge's ruling which said that the state had no compelling interest to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. McKenna said Downing's ruling could possibly preclude the state from denying marriage rights to blood relatives and those practicing polygamy.

So, if Downing's ruling would have stood, marriage would have become a slippery slope?

However, in an interview last year with radio KUOW McKenna said, "I don't think that same sex partnerships or, for that matter, if you had same-sex marriage, that would result in, or naturally lead to polygamy or other problems of the sort."

McKenna has said he opposes same sex marriage. It appears he is not changing his position, but it is unclear to me whether or not he thinks redefining marriage to accommodate homosexual couples will open the door to any number of other demands for marriage.

If not, why not?

One thing is clear. There will be others demanding marriage. Will the state have any basis to deny it if they legalize same-sex marriage?

Within the past week, a woman is demanding the right to marry an historic building in Seattle.

I know that is absurd. But just wait.

The Seattle Times concluded that Rob McKenna's comments were in fact related to a specific judicial ruling and does not reflect a general belief that same-sex marriage will open the door to further abuses of marriage.

A decade ago we said the incremental steps of expanding same-sex couples benefits and rights was stepping stones to redefining marriage. We were mocked. Now they are celebrating, declaring, "Of course, that has always been the plan."

The greatest cultural battle in the state's history lies ahead. It is a spiritual battle rather than a political one.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.