Same-Sex Marriage 2013

[pzarquon]

Hawaii Considers Same-Sex Marriage
Hawaii may be on track to become the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage, with lawmakers starting a special session Monday to take up the issue. Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie called the session after state House and Senate members were unable to pass the same-sex marriage bill with the two-thirds support required. But lawmakers said the legislation has garnered overwhelming support in the Senate and enough in the House to pass, the Associated Press reports.

[Walkoff Balk]

The bottom line is that if this will result in revenue > cost.

[Leo Lakio]

The bottom line is that if this will result in revenue > cost.

Yeah, because frankly, the financial bottom line is what should be our driving factor in matters of human respect, dignity, fairness and equality, don'cha think?

[Walkoff Balk]

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/b...l?id=230107811

So, we need more visitors.

[Walkoff Balk]

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/2...floor-for-vote

Gay for pay. Not there's anything wrong with that.

[Amati]

Anyone else watch some of the testimony on cable TV? It was an interesting presentation of how effective organizing those who have a strong opinion can be. As stated in the StarAdvertiser:

"Religious leaders who had launched a "People's Filibuster" to prolong the hearing stood down on Tuesday, as only a few dozen people came to the state Capitol to testify compared to the hundreds who were on hand late Monday."

Political Radar wrote on Nov.3:

Garret Hashimoto of the Hawaii Christian Coalition on Friday captured the essence of the strategy by calling it a "people's filibuster." "Please advise your congregations that they should not get too comfortable with the big number that they have been given for their testimony. Once the House Committees run out of testifiers, the hearing WILL end. Our goal is a "People's Filibuster", but the filibuster ends when we run out of speakers."

Part of his instructions included: "PLEASE make the final pitch! Anyone who submitted testimony and who received a number MUST SHOW UP ON MONDAY TO TESTIFY! If they cannot make it, please find someone to show up on that person's "behalf." So for example, if John Doe has a number but cannot testify because he's at work, he has Jane Smith show up on his behalf and read his testimony. Jane is NOT REPLACING John's testimony with her own but is reading his testimony to the group in order to waste time! If you organize people from your churches who can stay at the capitol all day and "read testimony" on behalf of others, that may be a start."

They ended their article with:

But the House has set a precedent that could be used by other interest groups that might find reasons to want to slow the legislative process to a crawl, particularly around important procedural deadlines during the regular session.

As it turned out, part of that situation was addressed on Monday, when testifying on another's behalf was not allowed.

The House's version on the bill is not yet online, so I cannot check the wording of their changes.

[Kaonohi]

Just DO it!

It's inevitable anyway, fair and equal.

[Amati]

The House version is posted online SD1 HD1. Changes include that a religious officiant (priest, etc) does NOT have to perform the wedding. And that a religious organization or religious nonprofit organization does NOT have to provide services or grounds for the wedding.

The StarAdvertiser advises that "The bill would also strip a section in the Senate's version that applied to parental rights. Some lawmakers were concerned about how Native Hawaiian ancestry might be recorded for the children of same-sex couples.". I could not find that topic in the Senate's version, so don't know the exact change, but I do recall there was concerned testimony about it from the public.

[pzarquon]

I was in the Capitol rotunda last night. Opponents outnumbered supporters and made sure everyone knew it. I think the objective was to disrupt the proceedings in the chamber, where opponents were also using stalling tactics. It was a weird place to spend part of my birthday, but I hope eventually I will have been witness to a small part of history and progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWpT5RtT2UY

[Kalalau]

The rights of people who oppose gay marriage are 100 % protected by minding their own business. Its so simple. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. And under the heading do unto others as you would have them do unto you, how would these people feel if total strangers barged into their private relationships and tried to get the state to ban their relationships??

[Amati]

The rights of people who oppose gay marriage are 100 % protected by minding their own business. Its so simple. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Most of the "opposition" testimony that I saw (cable TV) focused on those testifiers talking about:

1) not wanting to be forced by law to participate in the process of gay marriage (requiring clergy/churches to marry a guy couple or to have to support it with the use of their facilities),
2) not wanting the schools to include teaching about homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to their children,
3) the problem of the wording about the status of children so that it messed with the designation of being Hawaiian (which I could not find in the bills).
4) believing that the voting process to allow or not allow gay marriage should be done by "the people" and not done by the legislature.

Although many of those in opposition to the bill were obviously in opposition to homosexuality, and their testimony often reflected that belief, they focused their testimony on specific items in the bill that they objected to. Talking points had been circulated, and those were often used (it was well organized).

[Kalalau]

When we think about religious opposition it does need to be remembered that the Catholic church does have a long and unfortunate history of child molestation compounded by hiding it and not dealing with it including transferring offending priests to new, unaware parishes. They can't seriously be considered a valid judge of anybody else's morality. Let he who is without sin, etc. The Mormon church has some very unique views. God lives on an imaginary planet called Kolob. Jesus came to America after he was killed and taught the locals to build pyramids then moved to England where he married several English girls. Revelation states in the absolutely clearest terms that there is no additional holy work yet the book of Mormon proclaims it is an additional holy work. Come on! If people want to accept these or any other theologies thats their business but realistically, what right do they have to ram their views down other peoples throats? There was a great line in "Nuns On The Run" where the Catholic guy is trying to explain the holy trinity to the Jewish guy. The Jewish guy exclaims, "But it doesn't make any sense!" to which the Catholic guy responds, "Aah, but if it made any sense we wouldn't have to accept it on faith now, would we?" Church is the place for faith. The legislature, any legislature, isn't. We see in a nutshell why religion has been the source of so many wars, and why it is today. Enjoy it, folks, but in the name of God keep it to yourselves.

[Kalalau]

My coffee must have been unusually powerful this morning, so to continue...

as to teaching in school. Kids can be taught as the churches (which are tax exempt and shouldn't even be talking about how tax money should be spent) want, that gay kids are abnormal freaks. That will help ease gay kids into dissolute lives of drugs and alcohol and maybe suicide. It will help straight kids realize that its a good thing to beat up and maybe even kill freaks.

Or kids could be taught that some kids are gay and thats just the way it is. Then gay kids might feel that they have something to contribute to society, a reason to lead productive lives, and straight kids might learn that bullying is not a good thing to do. Funny how religion so often stands on the side of primitive intolerance. Slavery, for example, was held to be justified by Holy Scripture.

I think, but could be wrong, that in pre contact Hawai'i it was OK for people to be gay. There might have been defined roles but people were not ostracized or given electroshock "therapy" like the Mormons used to do to their gay brothers and sisters. And it would have been the wonderful missionaries who along with so much else they destroyed, destroyed that vision of tolerance, too. What was the worst thing the missionaries did? So many to chose from. Introducing intolerance against gays would have been far down the list from things like bringing in measles, but it would still be on the same list.

[matapule]

I think, but could be wrong, that in pre contact Hawai'i it was OK for people to be gay.

In Tonga, fakafefine(s) ("like a woman") are an integrated part of Tongan society.....always have been. It was common to see gay men walking down the street holding hands. It was no big deal to the Tongans, but in truth, it did cause some immature tittering among us first Peace Corps volunteers until we got used to it. Since it is traditional for both men and women to wear ta'uvala(s) (sarongs), the clothing is pretty much unisex. In fact the king of Tonga has traditionally employed fakafefines in the Royal Palace. I presumed that this practice was much like the employ of eunuchs in Europe to keep the wealthy women safe. Afterall, the King of Tonga wouldn't want his gene pool diluted by the casual dalliance of one of his harem with one of his male employees!

Regarding the influence of exposure to the gay lifestyle in grammar school is detrimental, my psychologist daughter says WRONG. That conclusion presumes that being gay is a matter of choice and not of birth. She says that a "gay gene" has been identified and we all, both men and women, have it to one extent or another. We are born with it. She believes that TOLERANCE of all types should be taught in grammar school without getting too specific about any type of lifestyle. She thinks that specifics should be left to an age where young minds can more easily process very complicated information. Unfortunately, some adult minds are still not advanced sufficiently to process information about genetic composition of the human body.

[Amati]

Discussion at the legislature today included if there should be an "opt out" option for parents (on behalf of their child) and teachers when it comes to the teaching of sex education in school (which would cover the topic of homosexuality).

Still being discussed was that many citizens feel the bill is being rushed, perhaps over the revenue it will supposedly bring in to Hawaii from increased tourism, and that all issues have not been clearly looked at so that the bill is fair and on solid ground (because it is being rushed through the process).

[Serenity]

A Lot of people argue that in the bible it states that only Adam & Eve get married, & not Adam & Steve.

I say , Who cares!!. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!!. IF Adam & Steve needs insurance as well as they are in love, well let them get married, that's all there is to it!!. So Simple!!.

= Marriages!!. Adam & Eve, AND Adam & Steve!!.

[Amati]

Most of the opinions discussed by the legislators today/tonight did NOT have to to with whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed (they have gotten way past that hurdle), it is about the construction of the law and details within the law concerning religious freedom, etc.

It has been televised, one only had to have watched to learn what the discussions have been focused on.

Personal prediction: Will the Senate readily accept the House's changes? My guess is yes, with a bit of minor discussion. Just enough to make it appear that they discussed relevant changes to the bill, and that unresolved issues are not important enough to spend time on with further consideration. We will see on Tuesday.

[Kalalau]

Somewhere I saw a chart of what REAL biblical marriage laws were. A widow had to marry her dead husband's sister. A virgin who is raped must marry the rapist. A bride who could not prove virginity was stoned to death. Husbands were allowed concubines in addition to the wife. At least these with multiple wives: Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Ashur, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin. The owner of slaves could assign wives to his male slaves and those wives had to submit. So when somebody says they want biblical law or traditional biblical marriage its possible they don't really know what they're talking about.

As to parents opting kids out, I have no problem with that.

Friends had a kid who played linebacker at Mission Bay High here in SD. When teammates used gay slurs he had the courage to correct them and because of his unquestionable heterosexualism and his manly tackling the players accepted what he had to say. Sad to say this young man passed away a few years ago. He was a gem of a human being.

[Ron Whitfield]

I'm one that's on the cusp or transitional in the evolving of opinions, willing to change if that's where the majority is but quite understanding of the traditional views. I'm just tired of the hoo ha and know it's going to happen so let's roll with the times, maybe then the problems will end.

[Amati]

SA:

State Rep. Bob McDermott (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point), who opposes gay marriage, sent Abercrombie a letter on Friday stating that he would file a temporary restraining order in Circuit Court to prevent the state from issuing marriage licences.

McDermott believes that the 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the Legislature the power to define marriage as between heterosexual couples trumps any statutory change to the law. He insists that another vote by the people is necessary to redefine marriage.

Judge Karl Sakamoto has said he would hear McDermott's challenge after the marriage equality bill becomes law.

So after it is passed and signed by the Governor (assuming that happens), here comes Chapter Two.

[D'Alani]

I may be naïve but although the voters empowered the legislature to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, did they do it or were they just empowered to do it and never did. Does being empowered automatically make it a law?

[Amati]

I may be naïve but although the voters empowered the legislature to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, did they do it or were they just empowered to do it and never did. Does being empowered automatically make it a law?

Good question. Hopefully someone in the know will respond.

On topic, some of the testifiers pointed out about the legislature's authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and they felt that the power did not extend to "between a man and a man", or a "woman and a woman".

[matapule]

Does being empowered automatically make it a law?

I am not a resident of Hawai'i and I don't presume to present myself as an authority on Hawaiian State law, but usually in government being "empowered" to do something does not make it law until specific legislation is enacted to codify a law. My best guess that is the crux of the hearings at this time. Since the Hawaian legislators did not act upon their empowerment from the electorate they in effect rejected that empowerment to define marriage as between man and woman. They are not bound by any law on definition of marriage. They can make whatever law they want. AND........the electorate of Hawai'i has the opportunity to nullify that law through the referendum process once it has been enacted.

[D'Alani]

Thank you Matapule that makes sense to me.

[Amati]

Hawaii state law currently defines marriage as thus:

§572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract. [2012 amendment retroactive to January 1, 2012. L 2012, c 267, §20.] In order to make valid the marriage contract, which shall be only between a man and a woman, it shall be necessary that:

Thus, there IS a law in place defining marriage a between a man and a woman. Perhaps it was already in place prior to the earlier public vote extending authority to the legislature, and that vote was used as a justification for the already-in-place law? That vote is reflected in the Hawaii State Constitution:

MARRIAGE
Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]

As we've heard in testimony, one of the issues with the current bill is that it is felt my many that the bill goes against the voter's intent in the public's passing the Hawaii State Constitution marriage section 23.