Tweet
Rob McKenna’s moderate facade is slipping. Washington State’s Attorney General and Republican gubernatorial candidate had the following to say about the referendum challenge to Washington’s new civil marriage equality law. Voters must APPROVE Referendum 74 in November to retain the marriage equality law.
I don’t support changing the definition of marriage. For me, marriage is a religious institution more than a civil institution.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it comes right out of National Organization for Marriage’s playbook. As I’ve written previously,
“Redefine marriage” is a catchphrase commonly used by those opposed to permitting civil marriage for same-sex couples. National Organization for Marriage promotes the sentence “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us” as the “most effective single sentence” among their talking points because it allows users to sound tolerant while avoiding discussion of their intent: banning access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.
The truth is, laws permitting civil marriage for same-sex couples don’t change the definition of marriage any more than permitting blacks and women to vote changed the definition of voting. …What [marriage equality] laws do is extend access to civil marriage to couples of the same sex.
Recall that back in February the Attorney General’s office, at NOM’s request, tried to slip “redefine marriage” into the official R-74 ballot language. Upon appeal by the pro-equality coalition, NOM’s highly biased trademark terminology was removed from the official R-74 ballot language by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee.
But Mr. McKenna chooses to continue using NOM’s biased terminology in his campaign.
Mr. McKenna’s second sentence, the one mentioning religion, is painfully unprofessional. As Attorney General, Mr. McKenna knows full well that R-74 concerns only who has access to the state’s civil marriage law, and is not a referendum on religion (which he should know would be unconstitutional). The official R-74 ballot language makes this quite clear:
Ballot Title
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.
Should this bill be:
Approved [ ]
Rejected [ ]
11 Comments
Hey, Rob — unless your father-in-law brought a cow and two goats to your wedding, the ‘definition of marriage’ has already been changed. What an idiot.
Ssshhh! That was the mother of the bride and her two sisters…..
“I don’t support changing the definition of marriage. For me, marriage is a religious institution more than a civil institution.”
And of course it’s all about him. Isn’t everything all about whichever Republican is talking?
If marriage is a religious institution (which it’s not, except by courtesy), how does he explain the fact that any priest, minister or rabbi who performs a marriage does so as an agent of the state? He or she doesn’t sign that state-issued license, the couple is not legally married. Period.
When I first officiated a (non-gay) marriage here (WA), I was surprised that the license had two categories: civil, or religious. There was a notation that any marriage not officiated by a judge (I think it said something about other appropriate state employee as well) was considered religious. Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but to me that’s absurd! To me, the license portion has never been a religious thing, only the ceremony itself. More often than not I’m asked to officiate ceremonies that don’t have even a hint of religion in them. But these marriages are considered “religious” because I’m not a judge.
I don’t believe that current marriage licenses require noting “religious” or “civil”. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.04
Yes, but you still had to sign a state-issued license. After all, churches can’t license anything.
Yes, that’s the whole point. R-74 deals with civil marriage, not religious marriage, even though religious people are allowed to solumnize the civil marriage if they want to (they are not — cannot be because of the US Constitution — compelled to).
Its one of those things thats always baffled me. If we have seperation of church and state, why is it that any religous offical can sign a marriage license or marriage certificate? Why is it that a marriage conducted by a relgious offical can have a license issued after the fact and any and all beneifits of the marriage (taxes, insurance, wills) are considered valid even without a marriage certificate?
Becuase I’ve seen all of that. My fathers own marriage to my step-mother has a major legal issue, he divorced my mom and the judge issued an order that neither one could re-marry for 90 days until the divorce decree was fully validated and recorded. They got married 5 days after the divorce, but even breaking the law their marriage is still considered valid.
This place is weird…
If they want to push this whole ‘re-defining marriage’ thing lets actually do it up right and make all civil unions AS civil unions only. That ‘marriage’ certificates are whole relegious and only issued by religous institutions.
How long has it been since a church differentiated how a civil marriage was treated differently from one “blessed” by the church? Not to mention, the catholic church is still not happy if a member marries outside of “THE” church.
I don’t know if the forms vary by county, but this was in Snohomish County. Hopefully the forms have changed by now.
Given the fact that now anybody can be ordained via the internet in 5 minutes, and that states don’t distinguish internet clergy from any other, to me that kind of makes the whole “religious” meme a sham.
Hmmm, the state could create a new revenue stream by creating an “officiator” license for people who don’t want to find a judge or a clergy…