Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Same-Sex Marriage 2013

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

    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!!.
    Aches & Pains
    (through out our lives) knows no time!!.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

      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.
      Last edited by Amati; November 8, 2013, 10:15 PM.
      Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

          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.
          https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

            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.
            Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

              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?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                Originally posted by D'Alani View Post
                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".
                Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                  Originally posted by D'Alani View Post
                  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.
                  Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                  People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                    Thank you Matapule that makes sense to me.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                      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.
                      Last edited by Amati; November 12, 2013, 01:10 AM.
                      Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                        Originally posted by Amati View Post
                        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.
                        And some feel that the voters' intent is irrelevant, since a majority does not have the right to deprive a minority of their rights. No more than, to draw a parallel, a majority of non-gun owners has the right to take away the guns of a minority of law-abiding gun owners.
                        Greg

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                          Originally posted by Amati View Post
                          Thus, there IS a law in place defining marriage a between a man and a woman. .
                          Didn't SCOTUS rule recently (5-4) that such laws are, in effect, unconstitutional? Maybe I wasn't paying attention.
                          Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                          People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                            Originally posted by GregLee View Post
                            And some feel that the voters' intent is irrelevant, since a majority does not have the right to deprive a minority of their rights. No more than, to draw a parallel, a majority of non-gun owners has the right to take away the guns of a minority of law-abiding gun owners.
                            Bad analogy! The majority does have the right to regulate or deprive the minority of their rights if the minority rights negatively impacts the public health, safety, and welfare of the common good, such as smoking, wearing helmets while riding a bicycle or motorcycle, requiring health insurance, and gun ownership. It has yet to be demonstrated how marriage to the same sex impacts the common good in any significant way. If it did, then that would provide an interesting argument.
                            Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

                            People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                              The Senate has voted, and the Governor has signed the new law. But the legality issues are not over yet.

                              StarAdvertiser:
                              Now, the struggle over marriage equality shifts to Hawaii's courts. State Rep. Bob McDermott, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, will seek a temporary restraining order to block the state from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, citing the 1998 constitutional amendment.

                              McDermott (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point) and other same-sex marriage opponents contend that the constitutional amendment outweighs any bill passed by the Legislature. Another public vote, they argue, would be necessary to redefine marriage.

                              Judge Karl Sakamoto has scheduled a hearing for Thursday in Circuit Court.
                              Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Same-Sex Marriage 2013

                                http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/2...m-gay-marriage

                                When you reach the bottom line.
                                The horses are on the track.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X