« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Ken Hutcherson: The off-message messenger who's gonna win us Washington state

by Jeremy Hooper

I've always said that longtime gay rights opponent Ken Hutcherson is going to be a liability to his side's effort(s) to put marriage equality on the ballot in Washington state. But honestly, the Initiative/Referendum Q&A he just posted on the subject surprised even me.

For one, Hutcherson doesn't really want anyone but Christians to participate in his petitioning effort. He also claims that his state's gay couples primarily want marriage so they can use it to go after religious groups. He also claims that church/state separation is a myth. Plus he's telling his supporters that his initiative/referendum, if passed, will inevitably find its way to a Supreme Court challenge. Oh, and he claims that "Muslims have come out in favor of same sex marriage so they can usher in Sharia Law which allows polygamy."

All that and a clumsy attempt to link gays to NAMBLA can be found below:

Screen Shot 2012-02-23 At 4.44.13 Pm Q: How do you answer the fairness question? Is it unfair to keep homosexuals from legal marriage?

A: Is it unfair not to let three people marry? Is it unfair that the men of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) not be allowed to marry little boys? It is not an issue of fairness but of righteousness and the Bible calls homosexuality sin.
Q: Why should Buddhists, atheists, and non-Christians care about "the marriage issue?”

A: Who says they do? The issue at hand is what God has asked Christians to do. Our biggest challenge is to get Buddhists, atheists and non-Christians to see the problem when they don’t know what the Bible says.
Q: I've read that the gay community isn't satisfied with the current civil unions. Can you explain why?

A: Because it does not give them the word “marriage.” And the word marriage makes them equal with everyone else, with all the same rights, even though they have all the rights under civil unions. If they don’t get “marriage” they can’t go after the religious groups that disagree with them.

Q: Given how California just ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional, won't it go the same way in Washington with Initiative 1192?

A: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed Prop. 8 unconstitutional, thus it will go to the Supreme Court. Our referendum and initiative will undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court. Prop. 8 will have paved the way and will have made a stronger case for us, assuming it is heard first.
Q: Where do Washington state Muslims and Mormons stand on "one man, one woman?"

A: They are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Mormons are against anything except one man/one woman. Muslims have come out in favor of same sex marriage, so they can usher in Sharia Law which allows polygamy.

Q: If this initiative and referendum fail and gay marriage becomes law, is polygamy on its coat tails?

A: Yes! Refer back to the immediately previous answer.
Q: Responding to the argument about "separation of church and state," what specific cultural (non-religious) values can we use to defend traditional marriage?

A: There is no such thing as the “separation of church and state.” The Constitution says the church is protected from the state. There are no arguments outside of the Bible. Without the biblical definition of marriage, there is no defense against same-sex marriage. That is why those in favor of same sex marriage MUST silence Bible-believers.

Q & A Re Same Sex Marriage [AB Church]

Keep talking, Ken! My gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends in the Evergreen state have weddings to plan.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails