McKenna said that he supports domestic partnerships and voted for Ref 71 which increased them to “everything but the name”.

However, he stated his intention to vote no on Ref 74 and the campaign had to go to court to change the language that he, as Attorney General, originally wrote for the ballot description. It contained “redefine marriage” wording, a key phrase of NOM.

Interestingly, it wasn’t just marriage supporters who disputed his language. Those who oppose equality claimed that it did not adequately inform voters of the “the legal effect” of the bill, which would “render the terms `husband’ and `wife’ as gender-neutral”.

So far, he seems to have avoided campaigning on the issue (as far as I can find) so the Times may not see the two campaigns as contradicting each other.