Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Blog for Arizona's Pamela Powers Hannley wrote a richly detailed post about Martha McSally in October 2012, after McSally avoided giving her an interview that she had scheduled with her campaign. Martha McSally: Warrior woman hides from questions, constituents, inconsistencies.
As I recall, Pamela was criticized for her reporting on McSally's annulment of marriage in Santa Cruz County, and "Rumor has it that McSally and Henry had a sham marriage of convenience." And then there was this:
There are multiple rumors on the Internet about McSally being a Lesbian. I don't care if she is gay and is in the closet. I do care if she had a sham marriage to avoid being outed-- since Don't Ask Don't Tell was in full swing in the late 1990s. I also care about this issue because McSally's rhetoric is decidedly anti-gay-- particularly when it comes to gay marrriage-- yet another "cookie cutter" Republican issue. Is McSally another one of those Republicans who talks loudly against gays and then turns out to be one?
I for one do not care what a person's sexual preference is, but I do care if a candidate for office is "pulling a Mehlman."
Ken Mehlman managed George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, which featured anti-gay marriage measures in eleven states to turn out the GOP base. The anti-gay marriage measures passed in all eleven states, and some analysts credit these ballot measures for George W. Bush's margin of victory. Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures and the 2004 Presidential Election (.pdf).
In 2010, Mehlman came out of the closet as gay, making him one of the most prominent openly gay figures in the Republican Party. Mehlman came out in an interview with journalist Marc Ambinder, who noted that Mehlman's roles with the RNC and the Bush campaign "coincided with the Republican Party's attempts to exploit anti-gay prejudices and cement the allegiance of social conservatives". Since coming out, Mehlman has advocated for the recognition of same-sex marriage; his advocacy has been variously received as courageous or as hypocritical. Ken Mehlman - Wikipedia. Yeah, I'm going with hypocritical.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions at the end of June on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8, which is back in the California courts this week, and the British Parliament is on the verge of approving same-sex marriage in Great Britain this week.
In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics -- I am not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.
Does McSally's support the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to recognize lawfully married individuals from states which recognize same-sex marriage on an equal basis for purposes of federal benefits, taxation, etc.?
If not, does McSally support the bill recently introduced by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which is cosponsored by 28 Republicans including Arizona's Reps. Trent Franks and David Schweikert? If so, what is her reasoning and justification?
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that the Pentagon “intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses—regardless of sexual orientation—as soon as possible.” Does McSally support the Secretary's position? If not, why not?
There are some 1,110 federal benefits, rights and obligations that, until Section 3 of DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, could only be claimed by heterosexual couples. Many federal agencies use a “place of residence” rule, which considers a marriage valid—and thus, spousal benefits valid—only if the union is recognized in the state where a couple lives. Does McSally support federal law and regulations to use a “place of celebration” rule, meaning that if a couple has a legal marriage license from any state, their union is valid regardless of the law where they live? If not, why not?
What is McSally's position on the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA, which purports to permit states to disregard the full faith and credit clause, Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and to not respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state," i.e., to recognize lawfully married individuals from states which recognize same-sex marriage on an equal basis for purposes of state benefits, taxation, etc.? Does she believe that Arizona should recognize lawful same-sex marriages recognized by other states? If not, what is her reasoning and justification?
Does McSally support Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution which defines marriage as "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state"? Explain.
Or does McSally support the Equal Marriage Arizona citizens initiative currently circulating petitions for inclusion on the 2014 ballot which would amend Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as "Only a union of TWO PERSONS shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state"? Explain.
Voters in Congressional District 2 have the right to know your positions on current hot topics, Ms. McSally. Feel free to answer this inquiry by posting a comment. More questions to follow.