McKenna Can’t Hide from Discriminatory Stance Against Marriage Equality

Today, during a meeting with The Olympian editorial board, Rob McKenna unconvincingly tried to argue that he supports civil rights while at the same time reaffirming his discriminatory stance against marriage equality.

McKenna tried to portray himself as a civil rights advocate by pointing to his recent court case defending the release of Referendum 71 signers, but you don’t have to look too far back at his record to see where he really is on the issue.

“Once again, Rob McKenna is proving that he is not who he says he is. While he claims he’s on the side of civil rights, the truth is that he fought to preserve discriminatory laws against same-sex couples during his tenure as attorney general, and has even has equated marriage equality with polygamy and incest. A court case defending the release of referendum signatures does not erase a record opposing equal rights for all Washington couples,” said Reesa Kossoff, Communications Director for the Washington State Democrats.

For full Olympian story, see here.

Background:

McKenna to the Olympian: Supporting Civil Rights while Discriminating Against Same-Sex Couples

McKenna: I Went To Court To Defend The Right Of The Public To Know Who Was Behind Referendum 71. In January 2012, The Olympian reported that at an editorial board meeting with the paper, McKenna said, “I have said that No. 1 I support the civil rights law that was on the ballot in fall 2010. I voted for it. I have been to court on a related issue to defend the right of the public to know who subjected that measure to a referendum to begin with. Otherwise it would have stayed in effect.” [The Olympian, 1/11/12]

McKenna on Marriage Equality: “I Have a Hard Time Getting There.” In January 2012, The Olympian reported that at an editorial board meeting with the paper, McKenna said, "My personal view is that domestic partners and same sex [couples] ought to enjoy all of the rights - the legal rights to inherit, to visit each other in the hospital, that whole panoply of rights - but my view of marriage is based on my religious faith. And so, I have a hard time getting there." [The Olympian, 1/11/12]

McKenna Vowed to Defend Discriminatory Laws

McKenna Pledged To “Vigorously Defend” The Anti-Gay Marriage Defense Of Marriage Act. According to the Seattle Weekly, McKenna parted from his predecessor Christine Gregoire by pledging to “vigorously defend” the Defense of Marriage Act. “Gay marriage opponents feel Gregoire mounted a weak defense. Now the attorney general’s office has a new boss: Rob McKenna, a Republican who has pledged to vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act.” [Seattle Weekly, 1/19/05]

McKenna Defended In Court State Law Preventing Same-Sex Marriage In Washington. McKenna led the state’s defense before the Washington Supreme Court of a 1998 law that restricted legal marriage to heterosexual couples and banned same-sex marriage in Washington. The Olympian reported, “A divided Washington Supreme Court ruled…that same-sex couples have no right of marriage under the state constitution…McKenna, whose lawyers defended the marriage law in court, said he was pleased the court acknowledged the Legislature’s ‘primacy’ in writing law and making public policy…’Moving forward, people who are unhappy with this decision have the ability to change the law through the Legislature or through initiative - but public policy should not be legislated from the bench.’” [The Olympian, 7/27/06]

McKenna Said 2004 Ruling Legalizing Gay Marriage Created Potential For Incestuous And Polygamist Marriages. McKenna criticized a 2004 King County Superior Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage for destroying “all standards” for legal marriage and for potentially leading to incestuous or and polygamist marriage. The Seattle Times reported, “The other Republican candidate, 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.” [Seattle Times, 9/6/04]

1/11/12