Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« From the New York Times Dept. of Co… | "Get Out of My Bed, Cat!" »

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Olympia Ken Hutcherson Explains His Gay Marriage Opposition to Steve Scher (Or: "Thank you for having me, brah.")

Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Resolution for 2012: Stay upset about the gays.

Kelly O
Resolution for 2012: Stay upset about the gays.

Oh man. As Slog tipper Anna points out, the Prayer Warrior was in quite a state this morning on KUOW as he tried to explain why gay marriage must not be legalized in Washington State, no matter what Governor Chris Gregoire says.

Let's take a listen with our eyeballs, courtesy of intern Marley Zeno's transcription.

Steve Scher: Thank you for talking to us.

Ken Hutcherson: Thank you for having me, brah

The governor is going to introduce a bill to legalize same sex marriage in Washington State. It has to be passed by the legislature. What does your legislator think of this bill, do you know yet?

No, I don’t, but I think we can get him on the right side of the issue. We just want to kill this bill in the legislature and not have to allow it to go to the people. I’m really surprised our governor has finally found something that she can feel good about what she’s done in office for the past seven years.

Well, you know, you said if it goes to the people—the polls have shown that the people are ready to support the marriage of same sex couples. Why not let it go to the people if that’s the case, or let their leaders vote on it? This seems to be a turning trend.

Well, I’d be more than happy to see that trend. I think that many think that because domestic partnership was passed that this issue of same-sex marriage will pass. I don’t believe that at all. I think that when you start asking people do they believe in same-sex marriage compared to domestic partnerships they’re gonna get a rude awakening. You know I don’t think that there’s one state that has allowed the people to vote on it that’s ever lost. Thirty one out of thirty one, I believe, is standing. The six states that now say that homosexual marriage is okay have all done it through the legislature. And in this state if it was really possible, if they really thought they had the votes as much as they’ve pushed this issue, and as strong as the Democrats and the homosexual community is in the state of Washington, it would already have been put on the ballot with the people.

Well, but things have changed. We’ve seen states legalizing it. We’ve seen countries legalizing it. Canada’s had it since 2005. Europeans have had it. The governor’s bill has no bearing on whether churches have to marry same-sex couples.

That’s a lie, brah.

Why is that?

Because every country you have mentioned that has passed these laws, every nation, Canada included, and not only Canada but now Massachusetts, has all infringed upon religious rights when it comes to this issue. Did you see the article that came out yesterday from Hawaii where the court just said in Hawaii that your church is not exempt from civil unions and people who want to get married in your church? They just passed that. Now, does that affect my religious freedom? Absolutely it does.

Hear the whole brain-melting thing right here.

FacebookShare

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Scher was so unprepared for that interview, it was not informative nor compelling.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Honest question, not trying to be snarky or anything, I'm just not familiar with the authority of churches in the matter: Does a church have a say on what straight couples get married in it, or are they obligated to host services for any straight couple that asks?

Posted by Zebes

on January 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Does Reverend Ken know that lying is a MORTAL SIN?

Posted by maddogm13 on January 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Dear Ken,

My relationship is none of your fucking business. You're going to lose this one.

Crawl back into your hole & worry about your own damn life.

Posted by very bad homo on January 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM

@2: A church doesn't have to marry anyone, including straight couples, if they don't want to. I know several couples who were turned away from a couple Catholic churches they wanted to get married in because only 1 of the partners was Catholic, for example.

Posted by NateMan on January 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

#2 No religious entity is required to open their doors to anyone they don't want to for any reason. That point is silly but it comes up as a last ditch effort of Radical Religious Extremists to defeat marriage equality. Scher has no clue about the issue of marriage equality. That whole idea of the Catholic Church in Mass being forced out of the adoption business because they hate Marriage Equality is CRAP. They were not forced out. They received tax payer money to fund that adoption operation. When they decided to deny tax payers the right to adopt children via their Catholic network, the tax payers of Mass stopped sending money. Scher had no idea about that.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I'm not going to waste my time listening to Steve Scher, least of all Steve Scher interviewing Hutch. But does anyone know, was there any recent marriage ruling in a Hawaii court? Is he just totally delusional? Or misinterpreting a real thing that exists?

Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

on January 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM

"Scher was so unprepared for that interview, it was not informative nor compelling. "

So par for the course then. Glad to see he is at least consistent.

Posted by Akbar Fazil on January 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

#7 The Hawaii connection.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/03…

Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I'm telling you, Traumatic Brain Encephalopathy among former football players is reaching epidemic proportions.

Posted by Fnarf

on January 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Is Ken Hutcherson really the best voice that those who oppose marriage equality can come up with? I'm 100% for marriage equality but even I can come up with a couple folks who are brighter and more articulate than this guy is. All for the best I suppose. As long as Hutch is the face of those who oppose marriage equality then we shouldn't have a problem if it makes it to the ballot in Nov.

Posted by metardtard on January 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Stever Scher and Hutch together?

I'm so happy I don't have to listen to that.

@2 and @7- @9 gives you the Hawaii case and I think there was a similar ruling in Massachusetts. Basically churches aren't required to marry anyone, but if they rent out their facilities then they're operating as a public accommodation and can't discriminate. Lots of churches have reception areas and halls they rent to couples getting married by other clergy or JPs, it's a nice revenue source. So the preacher and congregation aren't being forced to affirm any union (which is why it's not an infringement on their religious right to be assholes), they're just being told that they can't discriminate in their commercial enterprises.

Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings

on January 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

The Hutch also made an appearance on Channel 13 news this morning, beating this same old drum...

That reminds me, I need to email their news director and ask why bigots are being allowed airtime in Seattle......

Posted by merry on January 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

@10 For those that wish ill upon Hutch, TBE is the worst thing he could end up with. Unlike cancer, it doesn't kill you, it just makes you want to kill yourself, if you can ever muster the faculty to do so.

Posted by Sir Vic on January 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I do believe that this man just said "brah" non-ironically. I can't handle that.

Of course, he also doesn't seem to know the difference between the courts and the legislature, but that might require some actual research, so that's okay then.

Posted by doodle4395 on January 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

There is no way this is an accurate transcript. For instance, it says:

Steve Scher: The governor is going to introduce a bill to legalize same sex marriage in Washington State. It has to be passed by the legislature. What does your legislator think of this bill, do you know yet?

It's just impossible. At best, it was probably more like:

Steve Scher: The, uh, governor is, um, going to, uh, introduce, uh, a bill, um, to legalize, uh, same sex marriage, uh, in Washington, um, State. It, uh, has to, uh, be passed, um, by the, um, legislature. What, uh, does your, um, legislator, uh, think of, um, this bill, or, um, do you, uh, know yet?

Posted by also on January 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Even in countries where same-sex marriage is already legal, exactly zero religious entities are required by any law to perform same-sex marriages. Let no one argue otherwise: no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple is forced anywhere in the world to perform same-sex marriages. They can if they want, and many choose to, but none are forced to, whatsoever.

In fact, in European countries church weddings aren't even "official": even straight couples must get a civil marriage to be married in the eyes of the government in any European country. They can optionally get a church wedding, as well, to be married in the eyes of their deity, if they wish. But civil and religious marriage are well separated in Europe. Canada does not required any religious institution to perform same-sex marriage, either.

What @12 said is exactly right: churches that rent out space commercially are subject to nondiscrimination laws where they exist, as is the case in Hawaii. But the church can choose not to rent out space to avoid this, and under no circumstances (whether rented out or not) are the congregation or religious officiant required to marry a same-sex couple.

Posted by Simac on January 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Both Hutcherson and Scher are both idiots. Scher needs to be fired from KUOW. He hasn't made a good decision for KUOW since he became the GM.

Posted by Weekilter on January 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I heard Hutch say that marriage is one man and one woman and has been that way ever since Adam and Eve and that his Bible tells him that this is the only right way. Doesn't his Bible have Abraham (with two wives), Jacob (two wives and two other women), or Solomon (hundreds of wives)?

Posted by Charlie Mas on January 5, 2012 at 7:31 PM

You know who determines if you are married?

The state.

you can get married in a fucking innertube as long as there's a witness and you both sign the license.

Churches are superfluous and have no authority outside their own cult members.

Posted by sonder on January 5, 2012 at 7:56 PM

@6, the Catholic Charities adoption story is a little more complicated than that. I can't recall all the details, and I don't have time to research it again. The board of Catholic Charities and the hierarchy of the church were at odds over how to proceed. The church leadership prevailed and ended their adoption program. The state did not tell them that they had to close shop, though the state would probably have done so if they insisted on excluding same-sex couples from that point onward. (I probably screwed up my summary somewhere. Like I said, it's a tangled, complicated story. And if I recall correctly, the agency had placed kids with gays prior to the state recognition of same-sex marriage.)

Posted by midwaypete on January 5, 2012 at 8:18 PM

@17 Not exactly true... Here in Sweden atleast (its kinda different across Europe) the church has the right to marry a couple, not just perform the ceremony but the actuall legal part, IF it agrees to marry all those eligible for marriage within their own community. They cant be forced to marry those who doesn't share their own religion.

Some churches has declined the right to legally marry to be able to stop gay members of their religions to do it within the church/mosque/synagogue so any ceremony with them must be doubled up with a quick ceremony at the local council house to finish the legal part of it.

Posted by JensR