x
advertisement

Gay-Marriage Law Withstands Court Challenge

· 16 Comments · Facebook Comments (
)
· East Hawaii News, Featured Articles, News, North Hawaii News, West Hawaii News

(x) Click to Close
Gay-Marriage Law Withstands Court Challenge
Gov. Neil Abercrombie waves to an invitation-only crowd following Wednesday's signing of Hawaii's gay-marriage bill, which withstood a court challenge this morning. Courtesy photo.

Sign Up To Our Weekly Newsletter


Loading Facebook Comments
COMMENTS
  • BS

    What happened yesterday was total BS! The people voted AGAINST this but in typical Democrat fashion, they overrule the will of the people and impose their own morality and views on us.
    These are OUR institutions and traditions, they predate the State, the Country and are as old as humanity. Marriage is what it is, a biological institution, which is about the family, man woman and child.

    This is what you get when you vote for a liberal Troll like Abercrombie

    • westburke

      Nothing in this law requires you to participate in a same sex marriage. You don’t have to marry someone of the same sex. You don’t have to do anything to your traditions as a result of this law. Science is clear on this issue as well. Same sex attraction is biological. It is not a choice. Homosexuality predates history and the state as well. The difference is that heterosexual tradition is to deny, oppress, and character assassinate same sex attracted people as dirty, diseased, evil, unworthy, hell bound, and bad for children and society. Maybe it’s time to stop that and let people live free of state sponsored discrimination.

      • BS

        Do you think marriage is some super special secret club gays were denied entry into? Because for that matter, single people and polygamists are being discriminated against too.
        Do you have any idea why we have marriage or what the purpose is?
        It’s the union between a man and a woman and most importantly it’s about the children. Marriage is about encouraging and protecting the family unit, which is biological.

        Homosexuality isn’t something we should to be promoting, it’s not a good or a positive example for our keiki. And for the record homosexuality isn’t any more biological than pedophilia or necrophilia.
        I’m so sick of people acting like their helpless slaves to their every lust and perversion. Take some responsibility, you chose this life, don’t go forcing it on the rest of us, trying to change our traditions and institutions to accommodate your lifestyle. And using the power of the government to force your views on us isn’t going to win you any respect or affirmation.

        • GJW

          There’s so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to start with the corrections. Marriage isn’t a secret – you got that one right. But it is super-special and in most of the US – all of the US until relatively recently – gay people are denied entry. What makes the civil contract of marriage special? Well over a thousand federal benefits, and a varying additional number at lower levels, conferred upon the participants that have absolutely nothing to do with whether children are involved or are offspring of both. You’ve lived with someone for 40 years. Loved them. Supported each other materially and otherwise. Raised children with them. And then when they’re on their deathbed in the final stages of leukemia you’re not allowed to visit them because you’re not “family.” That’s what *you* are arguing for, Mr/Ms BS. And BS it is.

          Extending those benefits to stable homosexual couples isn’t promoting homosexuality. It’s ceasing to punish people for being homosexual. What it is promoting is stable family units. Think about the kind of commitment is implied by people maintaining loving stable relationship for decades despite the disdain or outright hatred to which they’re subject.

          Massachussetts was the first US state to legalize gay marriage. They also have one of the easiest divorce processes in the country. Want to know a third thing about Massachusetts? They’re a very close second for lowest actual divorce rate in the country, behind New Jersey. Meanwhile, some organization styling themselves the National Organization *for* Marriage is exerting all their efforts to prevent people who want to get married from doing so, while not actively promoting marriage for heterosexuals or having any particular problem with divorce.

          There’s nothing fundamentally biological about a family unit. The two adults in a nuclear family are generally not closely related. Children that are in the unit may be biologically related to both, one or neither adult.

          If you must fixate on children, take a minute to think and you’ll acknowledge that marriage, intercourse, conception, childbirth and child-rearing are all completely separable activities. Except for conception – a limitation I expect will be removed within a decade – any pair of people can engage in any of those acts without being involved in any other.

          I do not know, or know of, a single gay person who chose to be attracted to people of their own gender. Doesn’t happen, any more than heterosexual people chose otherwise. Here I think you’ve made the common error of conflating inclination with action. Further, their “lifestyle” isn’t being forced upon you or anyone else. The closest it gets is that a secular business nominally open to the public can’t prejudicially refuse to serve an arbitrary segment of the public. An organization that’s going to act like a private club is going to be treated like one.

          • haha

            Quite a book you wrote; who are you trying to convince, yourself?
            Nothing biological about the family unit? Are you nuts?
            We are designed to be male and female, there is no other gender, you’re just a pervert. Children are designed to be raised in a mother/father household, this is the design and that is the best way to raise a child.

            And I have news for you, people don’t get married for the fricken benefits, what a lame excuse. You don’t need marriage to go visit someone at the hospital or will property. Marriage is about the family and it’s largely a religious institution. What you’re really trying to do is gain affirmation from society and make your deviancy mainstream.

            And spare me the whole gays are discriminated against, who do you think you are, Rosa Parks?
            You’d be better off just arguing that having ANY definition for marriage is discrimination.

          • GJW

            Not trying to convince anyone. As I said, there was a *lot* wrong with the prior post.
            What perversion or deviancy do you think I’m afflicted with? You’re not under the impression that I’m gay, are you? Sorry. Straight white male. Happily married for many years. You don’t really think someone has to be a member of a group in order to want that group treated fairly, do you? I’ve got news for you: I’m not a gay, black, Jewish woman.

            I wrote there is nothing *fundamentally* biological about the family unit. If two people get married they’re a family. No biological relationship. If they adopt a child the family has grown and biology still doesn’t define it.

            There is no design. That’s delusion.

            Gender is not an either/or proposition. There are actually several axes, most of which can be observed on a continuum. One of the biggest practical problems with defining marriage as requiring one man and one woman is that it’s virtually impossible to formulate legally rigorous definitions of those words.

            The denial of familial benefits is absolutely one of the key reasons people argue for the legality of gay marriage. No institution needs to sanction two peoples’ love for each other but as I said there are well over a thousand benefits that accrue to spouses automatically that aren’t even *available* to unmarried couples. Almost every hospital in the United States will deny visitation by non-family members to terminal or seriously ill patients. That “almost” goes away if the patient’s “real” family – the ones they had no choice about being related to – object.

            Marriage *is* primarily about the family. That’s pretty much by definition and that’s pretty much the only thing you got right. As far as the law is concerned, marriage isn’t religious at all. It’s a civil arrangement between two people conferring certain rights and responsibilities. As a convenience, members of recognized clergy are allowed to officiate at the formalization of that agreement. A church could certainly host a purely ceremonial rite of matrimony; that wouldn’t be a marriage in the eyes of the law.

    • Gino

      hmmm, so we put it to popular vote, whether or not minorities get the same rights as the rest of us.

      sorry, but that is one pilau concept.

      Don’t worry the law does not take away the rights of straight married couples, or force them into same-sex unions. it simply grants the same rights to all citizens. thats nothing to be afraid of.

      • Haha

        Marriage isn’t a right., pure and simple. Homosexuality isn’t something we should be encouraging, it’s pilau.

        • Gino

          In a free society, citizens have a right to form a legally recognized union with another, aka marriage. Me? I’m a straight male, married for 30+ years and a dad .

          Those who are obsessed with this issue need to find something else to worry about, and ask themselves why on earth would another citizen’s orientation and legally recognized union with someone they love upsets them so. “Homosexuality …. it’s pilau.” How do you know that?

          Live and let live, its over before we know it started.

          • Haha

            Free doesn’t mean free for all. We as a society decide what we recognize to be marriage, in this case it was decided by a bunch of politicians.
            You are seriously suggesting apathy? Sorry but we have enough apathetic people who just exist. We need more people to be engaged and care about the direction this state and country is headed. And right now, it’s going downhill.

          • GJW

            A bunch of politicians elected by the people to represent their interests, acting in accordance with the law specifically including a constitutional amendment that was also voted on by the society.

        • GJW

          The US Supreme Court has explicitly disagreed with you for 125 years. And, as noted above, nothing that’s been done here “encourages” homosexuality.

      • GJW

        Absolutely right. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage almost a decade ago. Amazingly, none of the predictions of doom from opponents has yet manifested. People who want to defend “traditional” marriage would be well advised to observe that MA has the second-lowest divorce rate in the country. Maybe formal recognition of what civil marriage is really about is a good thing….

  • westburke

    This article is factually in error. The constitutional amendment reserved to the legislature the power to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The amendment did NOT state that the legislature HAD to define it that way. Same sex couples have always existed, or if not always, they have existed since the dawn of history. All that is happening in this law is that the state of Hawaii is granting legal recognition to these marriages which are already in existence. LGBTQ people have had their family traditions too since het parents have so often booted their LGBTQ children out of the house in their teens. LGBTQ build their own families out of what the mainstream society casts off. LGBTQ communities take care of their own, Now they are allowed to have this acknowledged when they HAVE to interface the state. If you don’t like it personally, well, so what. LGBTQ people are asking for you opinion.

    • http://BigIslandNow.com/ Dave Smith

      The article has been clarified to show that the 1998 amendment gave the Legislature discretion as to the definition of marriage.

      • westburke

        Thanks Dave.