Put same-sex civil unions on the table - Hawaii Editorials

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

Hawaii legislators are prepared to vote on whether to legalize same-sex civil unions, which may be a popular but legally questionable compromise.
Comments
1 - 20 of 58 Comments Last updated Jan 13, 2010
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
willie

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

7

4

3

The Governor is right, this is NOT an issue to spend any time on at all.
Big John - Hawaii Kai

Kailua Kona, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

4

1

The U.S. Supreme Court next year, will rule on the California's Proposition 8, passed by the voters. Wouldn't it be more wise for our legislators to wait until the ruling is issued, rather than spend time on this matter prematurely, before the ruling?
The Supremes

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Every right thinking person hates California.

But their ban on gay unions, where it was the Blacks that voted heavily in favor of the ban, provides some sort of redemption from their otherwise Tinsel Town existence of a celluloid film based, totally fake, Shagri-La.

Let's see. US Supreme Court is conservative.

I predict they will uphold the ban, reversing the lower court if it strikes down the ban, or affirming if the lower court were to uphold the ban.

The entire question would be moot if the San Andreas fault decided to fulfill its long standing promise and drop that state into the Pacific.
Freddie Mercury

San Diego, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

5

5

2

Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries exist detailing their relationships. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay. Indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so wrong? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based. Should any form of that love for one another be discouraged?
Freddie Mercury

San Diego, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

6

5

2

The base fear here is that of rape and a loss of control or masculine status. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food (or the female) and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate.
It has been suggested that homophobia is an instinctual fear of being raped by someone that the homophobe regards as lower than him in status. And the notion that a gay man might rape him is an instinctual fear.This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Prison rape is not an act of sex as much as it is an expression of dominance and a means of control
BozoNemesis

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

5

4

1

"Hawaii legislators are prepared to vote on whether to legalize same-sex civil unions, which may be a popular..." Oh really? Popular with whom, dear HSB "journalist" (LOL)? I believe this gay marriage thing "fell off the table" a few years ago with a vote by THE PEOPLE against it. Why does it keep resurfacing? The CORRUPT career Dumocraps running their annual dog-and-pony, smoke and mirrors show are JUST NOT LISTENING to those who they are SUPPOSED to represent. Please send them a message in November that them and their blood-sucking friends are history and not to let the legislative doors hit them in the okole on their way out! Maybe they can all find suitable employment in the private sector (LOL again)!'Nuff said...
Poi

San Leandro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Special rights for one particular abnormal minority is just that, special rights.

Common sense, the Constitution and morality all dictate that if you are going to abandon the thousand year old definition of marriage in favor of one group of adults, then you must also include all others.

Polygamists, bisexual threesomes, communal groups, transgender combinations, sterile incestuous adults etc are all tax paying, law abiding consenting adults as well.

A true "civil rights" bill would redefine human unions as anything goes between consenting adults.

The Constitution does not say anything about marriage.(probably because the founders just assumed that everyone knew what it was). The Constitution also says nothing about relationships being limited to 2 people. So all of this is pulled out of a hat.

Bottom line is that any special rights law for homosexual couples alone is in fact discriminatory itself and does nothing to solve the so-called "civil rights" of men.
Poi

San Leandro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

5

5

3

Also realize people of Hawaii that this has nothing to do with "civil unions" for the homosexual lobby.

They have no desire for "civil unions" and in fact already have many of the benefits in Hawaii and most of the benefits in California.

This is about homosexuals trying to earn a USDA stamp of approval. An strong need to feel "normal" based upon US law.

What they want to do is to create "civil unions" and then the day they are created, sue in court to say that they are unconstitutional based upon the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

This way they can get homosexual marriage forced upo the people by a few lawyers in black robes and not have to get the people to actually agree with it and vote for special rights for homosexual couples.

That is their plan.
Poi

San Leandro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

For those who say "who cares, how will it affect you?"

For starters;

1) Churches who rent out their facilities for weddings will have to rent them out to homosexuals or be sued for discrimination.

2) Homosexual couples will be treated equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to adoption.

3) All references to one mother, one father will be cleansed from the public school system and young impressionable children will be reading "My Two Daddies" and talking about the FACT that there is really no such thing as a family definition, its whatever you want it to be.

4) Military events, which include family, such as promotion ceremonies and dinners, will include openly homosexual couples, dancing, kissing and hugging in their uniforms. Great for the young children of the military members to see? And there will be nothing anyone can do without being sued.

If these types of changes won't affect you or your society, then fine. But I think they will affect people more than they realize.
realist

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 12, 2010
 
OK, talk about it and waste more time and then take a vote and vote it DOWN. What this paper wants is more of the same wasteful legislative politicing and life changing intrusions into the lives of Hawaii citizens. Leave marriage as it is; it is too costly to taxpayers to pay for all the different spouse combinations Act 444 would engender.
Lei

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

1

I could have sworn the people of Hawaii once voted on this issue. Why does it resurface again as something else? Did we change the lawmakers in an attempt to change the law or are the elected not listening to their constituents?
Von

Aiea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 12, 2010
 
There is no were in the same-sex civil union proposal stating that same sex marriage must be between two Bipedal primate mammals or humans.
Poi

San Leandro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Poi wrote:
3) All references to one mother, one father will be cleansed from the public school system and young impressionable children will be reading "My Two Daddies" and talking about the FACT that there is really no such thing as a family definition, its whatever you want it to be.
Actually, its worse than that.

We will have to start teaching young children that "marriage" is fine between one man and one woman, one man and one man, and one woman and one woman.

But everything else, like polygamy or communes or just 2 related individuals who want the benefits of marriage are all wrong.

A child will ask "why". Why is it okay for 2 men or 2 women to marry but not these other people?

How do you answer that legislators?
Hula girl

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Poi wrote:
Special rights for one particular abnormal minority is just that, special rights.
Common sense, the Constitution and morality all dictate that if you are going to abandon the thousand year old definition of marriage in favor of one group of adults, then you must also include all others.
Polygamists, bisexual threesomes, communal groups, transgender combinations, sterile incestuous adults etc are all tax paying, law abiding consenting adults as well.
A true "civil rights" bill would redefine human unions as anything goes between consenting adults.
The Constitution does not say anything about marriage.(probably because the founders just assumed that everyone knew what it was). The Constitution also says nothing about relationships being limited to 2 people. So all of this is pulled out of a hat.
Bottom line is that any special rights law for homosexual couples alone is in fact discriminatory itself and does nothing to solve the so-called "civil rights" of men.
You Haole people in San Francisco are most certainly out of bounds and pathetically different. Your views and comments about Hawaii's issues which have nothing to do with you is case in point. Californians like you are always sticking your racist nose in our kuleana. You should focus your rants and raving comments to local issues in that screwed up state of yours. Your comment on this gay marriage issue with mumble jumble words are taken as just that. I bet if we knew what your life style is we wouldn't be that surprised. You talk about civil rights of men, but clearly in the past have attacked the AJA population of Hawaii. As usual you white people talk with a FORK tongues.
satch7

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Same-sex civil union is a travesty on the values of our society. One wonders why our society has lost all its traditional values and for those that advocate same-sex unions, you are DEFINITELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MORAL TURPITUDE and should be allowed to be incarcerated in prison where you can definitely practice what you preach and have ALL THE SAME-SEX YOU CRAVE FOR IN YOUR MORAL DECAY OF VALUES. All these homosexuals and lesbians that lobby our liberal legislators should be cast aside and expelled from the norm of society and not have their immoral values imposed on the rest of the population. OK, you liberal idiots, i'm ready for all your blogs that will be attacking me....bring it on......
Freddie Mercury

San Diego, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hula girl wrote:
<quoted text>
You Haole people in San Francisco are most certainly out of bounds and pathetically different. Your views and comments about Hawaii's issues which have nothing to do with you is case in point. Californians like you are always sticking your racist nose in our kuleana. You should focus your rants and raving comments to local issues in that screwed up state of yours. Your comment on this gay marriage issue with mumble jumble words are taken as just that. I bet if we knew what your life style is we wouldn't be that surprised. You talk about civil rights of men, but clearly in the past have attacked the AJA population of Hawaii. As usual you white people talk with a FORK tongues.
Your a dummy. There are more Asians in the San Francisco/Oakland area (New York as well) than the entire population of the state of Hawaii. Bring something to the table, take the provincial thinking chip off your shoulder, and stop playing the racist pitty card.

“Kokokahi -We are all one blood”

Since: Mar 08

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Here's the obvious solution to this mess, based on separation of church and state.

Marriage is a sacrament bringing souls together in the presence of God. That's the domain of religion, and government should stay out of it. Any church should be able to marry same-gender or opposite-gender people according to whatever its theology might be. Sexuality is an important part of spirituality; therefore any church should be free to allow or prohibit same-gender marriages according to whatever its religious beliefs may be. Government should never certify any marriage, nor any divorce.

Civil union is a legal partnership certified and enforced by the government. The partners in a civil union have rights and responsibilities as determined by the government. If the government chooses to bestow benefits to promote civil stability (such as tax breaks), it can only bestow benefits to civil unions but not to marriage (separation of church and state).

People can have either a marriage, or a civil union, or both. Having one does not necessarily mean having the other.

Churches are free to allow same-gender marriage or to prohibit it, because that is a matter of religion and government must not interfere.

Civil unions are partnership agreements sanctioned and enforced by government. It is therefore a matter of civil rights that government must allow same-gender partners to form a civil union on the same basis as opposite-gender partners. When business partners decide to file incorporation papers the government does not inquire into whether they are same or opposite gender, whether they have a sexual relationship or what sort of sexual relationship they might have. The same should be true of domestic partnership contracts, also known as civil unions.

This has been a summary of a lengthy, detailed analysis I wrote. Please see
http://tinyurl.com/l8qas2
Poi

San Leandro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 12, 2010
 
Hula girl wrote:
<quoted text>
You Haole people in San Francisco are most certainly out of bounds and pathetically different. Your views and comments about Hawaii's issues which have nothing to do with you is case in point. Californians like you are always sticking your racist nose in our kuleana. You should focus your rants and raving comments to local issues in that screwed up state of yours. Your comment on this gay marriage issue with mumble jumble words are taken as just that. I bet if we knew what your life style is we wouldn't be that surprised. You talk about civil rights of men, but clearly in the past have attacked the AJA population of Hawaii. As usual you white people talk with a FORK tongues.
Haha.

Funny.

No get huhu immigrant girl.

Since: Nov 09

Keauhou, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 12, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Star-Bulletin advocates for a revisit of this issue because it believes things have changed since we last voted. Is this going to be a recurring theme until the vote the SB wants finally results. And then will the SB say case closed, no more voting.
How many other laws does the SB think we should revisit and revote on because "time have changed".
MeNotAffected

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 12, 2010
 
Poi wrote:
For those who say "who cares, how will it affect you?"
For starters;
1) Churches who rent out their facilities for weddings will have to rent them out to homosexuals or be sued for discrimination.
personally, I do not think a church or religion should be forced to change or go against their beliefs. I would think civil unions would not have the right to demand a church ceremony. It's a civil ceremony as opposed to marriage. Separation of church and state, etc. But as nonprofits, if a church is going to rent facilities to the public as a means of makng money, then they should be held to the same discrimination laws as everyone else.
Poi wrote:
2) Homosexual couples will be treated equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to adoption.
Makes sense, as single parents can adopt now (and perhaps even gay couples in some places?), so the requirement of a male gender and a female gender seems like it should be the least of considerations, especially when there are plenty of bad examples of male/female partnerships.
Poi wrote:
3) All references to one mother, one father will be cleansed from the public school system and young impressionable children will be reading "My Two Daddies" and talking about the FACT that there is really no such thing as a family definition, its whatever you want it to be.
It's hard for me to believe that, as you say, ALL references to a male/female family unit will be "cleansed" from public schools. That seems a bit hysterical. But since families already come in a wide range of forms, including single parents, it might be better to tone down the "Mommy/Daddy is best" routine. You know, for those kids who might not have one or the other for whatever reason.
Poi wrote:
4) Military events, which include family, such as promotion ceremonies and dinners, will include openly homosexual couples, dancing, kissing and hugging in their uniforms. Great for the young children of the military members to see? And there will be nothing anyone can do without being sued.
If these types of changes won't affect you or your society, then fine. But I think they will affect people more than they realize.
I think that key to this will be the changing of the generations in our society. The older generation will either come around or die off, with the younger generation a more excepting one in general. Similar to what happened with other civil rights such as the right to vote and race issues. As far as the military ceremony, if it was my gay child or friend or relative celebrating, I would welcome displays of affection. Within reason. I mean even a hetero couple groping and slobbering over each other in public can be a little much. But usually military events are a little more in control. Sure it will be hard for some people to get used to perhaps. Change always is. And certainly some will never accept it, same as with other civil rights. But the rest of society will move on.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Other Recent Honolulu Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
superferry rising like a phoenix 7 min Maverick 808 9
PBN: Rainbow Drive-In expansion 13 min Guru 8
Michael Brown a Thug Like Trayvon 17 min Joe Balls 92
OBAMA COUNTDOWN for DAYS LEFT In Office UNTIL N... (Jan '14) 45 min Guru 1,869
Isle housing bottom seen - Business (Apr '09) 57 min Guru 61,908
Last Post Wins (Apr '11) 59 min tastesLikeChicken 2,139
SuperFerry Haiku (Oct '07) 1 hr District 1 2,833
How Expensive is Living in Hawaii? 6 hr Joe Balls 40

Search the Honolulu Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Honolulu Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Honolulu People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Honolulu News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Honolulu
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••