Hawaii Legislature OKs historic civil unions bill; governor now must decide

Apr 30, 2010 Read more: r.smartbrief.com 7

By a vote of 31-20, the Hawaii House today approved a civil unions bill just hours before the end of this year's legislative session.

Read more
Joe

Riverdale, NJ

#1 Apr 30, 2010
Hope New Jersey courts are paying attention I wouldn’t mind going to Hawaii for my Honeymoon:-)))

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Apr 30, 2010
Am I the only one who feels that civil unions are a whole separate issue, and have little to do with anything about gay rights?

I realize that that's contradictory, but I don't know how else to describe my feeling. The concept of "civil unions" -- THANKS TO THE ANTI-GAY, as is entirely usual and entirely par for the course -- has BECOME a literal second-class status.

It has now been acknowledged and compartmentalized as a deliberate second-class status. It is blatantly separate but equal. It is not a compromise at all. It is the anti-gay relegating gay people to second-class status.

I thought -- honestly -- that with time, I'd grow to agree with it. I now find it COMPLETELY unacceptable; we might as well establish separate white/black restrooms and swimming pools, etc. etc.

To me, the solution remains to make *ALL* marriages civil unions, and to separate church marriage from civil unions for everyone. To me, even if this "becomes law" in Hawaii, it doesn't really accomplish anything.

I defer politely to those who say "one step forward!" ... but disagree. That is, unless the anti-gay are correct and this *IS* meant to be an interim step toward gay marriage.(And even then, the interim bullshit holds no interest for me; I am only interested in the end result.)
Joe

Riverdale, NJ

#3 Apr 30, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Am I the only one who feels that civil unions are a whole separate issue, and have little to do with anything about gay rights?
I realize that that's contradictory, but I don't know how else to describe my feeling. The concept of "civil unions" -- THANKS TO THE ANTI-GAY, as is entirely usual and entirely par for the course -- has BECOME a literal second-class status.
It has now been acknowledged and compartmentalized as a deliberate second-class status. It is blatantly separate but equal. It is not a compromise at all. It is the anti-gay relegating gay people to second-class status.
I thought -- honestly -- that with time, I'd grow to agree with it. I now find it COMPLETELY unacceptable; we might as well establish separate white/black restrooms and swimming pools, etc. etc.
To me, the solution remains to make *ALL* marriages civil unions, and to separate church marriage from civil unions for everyone. To me, even if this "becomes law" in Hawaii, it doesn't really accomplish anything.
I defer politely to those who say "one step forward!" ... but disagree. That is, unless the anti-gay are correct and this *IS* meant to be an interim step toward gay marriage.(And even then, the interim bullshit holds no interest for me; I am only interested in the end result.)
Being from NJ where we have “Domestic Partnership” now. The courts have said the legislature must address the law’s flaws because it does not give equal rights to Same Sex Couples as a full marriage would. If the justices in NJ are watching this they will decide the legislature has not fulfilled the courts order and do the job for them. Hawaii is another step for us to finally have Full Rights and recognition in NJ as a couple.
Living as a second class citizen (paying first class taxes) I agree with you 110%. But we’ll take it as we get it.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#4 Apr 30, 2010
rdg1234 wrote:
Am I the only one who feels that civil unions are a whole separate issue, and have little to do with anything about gay rights?
I realize that that's contradictory, but I don't know how else to describe my feeling. The concept of "civil unions" -- THANKS TO THE ANTI-GAY, as is entirely usual and entirely par for the course -- has BECOME a literal second-class status.
It has now been acknowledged and compartmentalized as a deliberate second-class status. It is blatantly separate but equal. It is not a compromise at all. It is the anti-gay relegating gay people to second-class status.
I thought -- honestly -- that with time, I'd grow to agree with it. I now find it COMPLETELY unacceptable; we might as well establish separate white/black restrooms and swimming pools, etc. etc.
To me, the solution remains to make *ALL* marriages civil unions, and to separate church marriage from civil unions for everyone. To me, even if this "becomes law" in Hawaii, it doesn't really accomplish anything.
I defer politely to those who say "one step forward!" ... but disagree. That is, unless the anti-gay are correct and this *IS* meant to be an interim step toward gay marriage.(And even then, the interim bullshit holds no interest for me; I am only interested in the end result.)
I agree. "Separate but equal" is NEVER EQUAL.
Frank Stanton

Saratoga Springs, NY

#5 Apr 30, 2010
If a DEVOUT Christian believes that Jews should only be entitled to civil unions, because they don't follow the bible and and accept the obvious truth that Jesus Of Nazareth is the Savior, should the people or the legislature be allowed to vote on that ?

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#6 May 1, 2010
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Being from NJ where we have “Domestic Partnership” now. The courts have said the legislature must address the law’s flaws because it does not give equal rights to Same Sex Couples as a full marriage would. If the justices in NJ are watching this they will decide the legislature has not fulfilled the courts order and do the job for them. Hawaii is another step for us to finally have Full Rights and recognition in NJ as a couple.
Living as a second class citizen (paying first class taxes) I agree with you 110%. But we’ll take it as we get it.
I *was* actually unclear as to why someone had mentioned New Jersey; thank you for this post.

Since: Apr 07

Philadelphia, PA

#7 May 1, 2010
Frank Stanton wrote:
If a DEVOUT Christian believes that Jews should only be entitled to civil unions, because they don't follow the bible and and accept the obvious truth that Jesus Of Nazareth is the Savior, should the people or the legislature be allowed to vote on that ?
See, questions like this should be being vocally publicized, and answers endlessly demanded.

Every time the pro-gay demand answers, they force the anti-gay to jump through hoops that clarify that the anti-gay are making up this shit as they go along.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Aiea Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man shot dead was trying to turn life around (Aug '09) Apr 5 Rich Dayton 126
News HART acquired 34 properties for $70M along Hono... Mar 24 JBs Legal Age Dau... 14
How to make a satisfactory video by video merger? Mar 22 allpepole 1
News HPD chief assessed as above average in review Feb '15 American_Infidel 4
News Hawaii construction unions support bill to exte... Feb '15 Francine 2
News Letters to the Editor - Hawaii Editorials (Jan '10) Feb '15 TheWayItReallyIs 37
News Popeyes opening sixth Hawaii location next month Feb '15 Defenestrator 14
More from around the web

Aiea People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]