Jobs, not civil unions, is focus, Lingle says - Hawaii News

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

Gov. Linda Lingle is worried that the civil union bill now awaiting action in the state Senate will be so controversial, it should be put off until 2011.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of149
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Hilo boy

Keaau, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 9, 2010
 
Liberace wrote:
I need a job.
plenty poofdas over here that can use a job
Midnight Rambler

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jan 9, 2010
 
Poi wrote:
As currently proposed, there is nothing about "civil rights" in this or any other proposition in the US today.
This is all an attempt to redefine SPECIAL rights for one particular aberrant sexual behavior, that of homosexual couples.
Yep, you're right. Civil unions give some, but not all, of the benefits of marriage, without imposing many of the obligations of divorce. That's why allowing gay marriage is the only equitable solution.
SpeakingTruth

Kihei, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 9, 2010
 
Mind your own business wrote:
The truth is, as evident in many gay-friendly destinations, gay marriage is huge business with the potential to bring in lots of money that will increase hotel occupancy, stimulate the economy here, and make the islands a premier destination for visitors dual incomes (and not to mention their families and friends).
Right now the state relies heavily on tourism, and the state's shortfall was caused by low hotel occupancy rates and fewer terrorists. Without the draw of gaming which is legalized in other places, and the lack of theme parks, there is no other reason for tourists to pay the enormous fees required to visit our islands.
But if gay marriage, not just civil unions, were sanctioned we could be an international wedding destination that could rival some of the large cities providing accommodations for those seeking to honor personal commitments to partners of the choice.
In this world, money talks. Get over your personal objections to the idea simply because it is not your cup of tea. Gay couples (especially male-male) on average have more earning and spending power than traditional couples, and the money is just as good. Once the entire economy flourishes, it's a win-win situation for everyone with no need for furloughs and dipping into emergency funds. So what if you see more handholding between same-sex couples in the island? It's still ALOHA after all, isn't that what we like to call ourselves -- the ALOHA STATE?
We the people of Hawaii should determine what kind of tourism we want to perpetuate in Hawaii and NOT SELL OUT FOR ANOTHER BUCK! Our state motto is "The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness". Two gays cannot even perpetuate the human species...NO, do I don't think so. THE "ALOHA STATE" CAN ALSO MEAN WE STAND FOR TOUGH LOVE...WE HAVE A STANDARD TO KEEP...example, would you give your friend the keys to his car if he is intoxicated? No!

Since: Oct 09

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jan 9, 2010
 
Poi wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil Unions bill, as written now, is discriminatory and bigoted and hateful against other adults who want to have their own relationships as well.
The special rights for homosexuals movement would be like blacks in the 60s fighting only for the rights of blacks while telling Asians and Hispanics to go fight for their own rights.
That would not have been true human "civll rights" and neither is this.
This just goes to show that you have not read the bill and you need to educate yourself!

Civil Unions is not a "special right" it is a CIVIL RIGHT!
Trust

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jan 9, 2010
 
Can't trust our legislators or Unions these days - they're looking out for themSELVES!
Genora Dancel

Aiea, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jan 9, 2010
 
Mahalo Jo-Ann. I totally agree with you!
IdiotJr

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jan 9, 2010
 
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
This just goes to show that you have not read the bill and you need to educate yourself!
Civil Unions is not a "special right" it is a CIVIL RIGHT!
The voters had same sex/gay unions on the ballot in '98 and it was rejected by all local residents overwhelmingly by a massive majority.
Why do we have to keep voting on this rubbish? You got some issues Jr.
If the legislature approves it, should the voters get to vote on this as a ballot issue again, and again and again?
Tim L

Hilo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Jan 9, 2010
 
What a moronic bigot. Ok, so she is a divorced closeted lesbian. Of course she doesn't want to discuss it. What is more important in a recession to Gay and Lesbian families than having some basic civil rights? I can't wait until Lingle is long gone. What a disaster she has been on so many levels. Raise taxes ever so slightly on the rich who cleaned up during her buddy Bush's 8 horrific years. Economic crisis solved!
Poi

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Jan 9, 2010
 
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
This just goes to show that you have not read the bill and you need to educate yourself!
Civil Unions is not a "special right" it is a CIVIL RIGHT!
You are lying or more likely ignorant.

The bill says "couples". That is pure bigoted, discriminatory, prejudiced special rights.

If we are going to discard the multi thousand year old common sense definition of marriage, then any and ALL CONSENTING ADULTS must be allowed to form any union they want.

Polygamy, for just one example, if far more "normal" than homosexual couple unions has ever been. Polygamy is normal in may countries today.

You want "civil rights", then it must apply to all consenting adults, not just unrelated biologically male or female couples.
Poi

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Jan 9, 2010
 
IdiotJr wrote:
<quoted text>
The voters had same sex/gay unions on the ballot in '98 and it was rejected by all local residents overwhelmingly by a massive majority.
Why do we have to keep voting on this rubbish? You got some issues Jr.
If the legislature approves it, should the voters get to vote on this as a ballot issue again, and again and again?
There has been dozens and dozens of public votes across the country over the past 20 years.

Every one, 100% resulted in preserving the normal definition marriage. NOT ONE supported special rights for homosexual couples.

Since: Oct 09

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Jan 9, 2010
 
IdiotJr wrote:
<quoted text>
The voters had same sex/gay unions on the ballot in '98 and it was rejected by all local residents overwhelmingly by a massive majority.
Why do we have to keep voting on this rubbish? You got some issues Jr.
If the legislature approves it, should the voters get to vote on this as a ballot issue again, and again and again?
Dear Idiot Jr (that is your name right?)

That we 12 YEARS ago and the issue on the ballot was to give the LEGISLATURE the power to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This is about civil unions NOT marriage.

Any half descent lawyer or for that matter semi-educated person will tell you they are not the same thing. In the law you cannot just switch names and have them mean the same thing.

We should not be voting on civil rights - we did not vote for women to get the right to vote or end slavery.

You are the one that needs to remember that there is someone that you know and love that is a member of the LGBT community. So when you fight against our civil rights you are fighting against that person too and that is sad!
fo real

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Jan 9, 2010
 
NO "GAY" marriage in Hawaii, k? tnx.
SpeakingTruth

Kihei, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Jan 9, 2010
 
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
This just goes to show that you have not read the bill and you need to educate yourself!
Civil Unions is not a "special right" it is a CIVIL RIGHT!
Well if it is "Civil Rights" then why can't a brother marry his own sister...wouldn't that be "Civil Rights" too? "Civil" in an uncivilized world.
Poi

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Jan 9, 2010
 
SpeakingTruth wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if it is "Civil Rights" then why can't a brother marry his own sister...wouldn't that be "Civil Rights" too? "Civil" in an uncivilized world.
Maybe not. Society can claim interest in avoiding the medical issues which are known to arise when there are offspring of close relatives.

So we can say that "sterilized" or infertile incestuous adults should have the right to a civil union if they so desire.

But don't forget the polygamists, the transgenders, the bisexual threesomes, the communal groups etc. They can all be made up of consenting, tax paying, law abiding adults.

Why shouldn't they get the same rights being arbitrarily delivered to homosexual couples and homosexual couples alone.

The special rights for homosexual couples movement is pure discrimination and bigotry.
Peaches

Wahiawa, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Jan 9, 2010
 
At last someone's said something that makes sense. I agree that the legislature needs to concentrate on our economy now. Controversial and divisive issues need to go on the back burners. Let's have solid conversation on solutions for getting people back to work and our economy back on track.
SpeakingTruth

Kihei, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Jan 9, 2010
 
Poi wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not. Society can claim interest in avoiding the medical issues which are known to arise when there are offspring of close relatives.
So we can say that "sterilized" or infertile incestuous adults should have the right to a civil union if they so desire.
But don't forget the polygamists, the transgenders, the bisexual threesomes, the communal groups etc. They can all be made up of consenting, tax paying, law abiding adults.
Why shouldn't they get the same rights being arbitrarily delivered to homosexual couples and homosexual couples alone.
The special rights for homosexual couples movement is pure discrimination and bigotry.
I differ with your statement..."polygamist, the transgenders, the bisexuals threesomes, the communal groups...made up of consenting, tax paying, law abiding adults"...they may be consenting and tax paying but not "law abiding" cause they want to change the law to suit themselves. People of Hawaii already voted on the definition of marriage. Enough already...we need to focus on our economy and jobs so there won't be more people needing government assistance cause the govt is running out of money.
Kapahu

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Jan 9, 2010
 
Kudos Gov! Good advice.

I hope the Democratic party leaders are listening. Civil unions is political suicide. Those that push to pass this bill are on a suicide mission and don't care who they destroy: themselves, their colleagues, the legislature, the Democratic Party... The turmoil that will ensue from this suicide mission will throw the rest of the session into such disaray it will virtually paralyze lawmakers from doing anything. And it will spell disaster for its supporters at the polls this Fall.
Observer

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Jan 9, 2010
 
Poi wrote:
<quoted text>
So we can say that "sterilized" or infertile incestuous adults should have the right to a civil union if they so desire. But don't forget the polygamists, the transgenders, the bisexual threesomes, the communal groups etc. They can all be made up of consenting, tax paying, law abiding adults.
Why shouldn't they get the same rights being arbitrarily delivered to homosexual couples and homosexual couples alone.
The special rights for homosexual couples movement is pure discrimination and bigotry.
You should just come out and say you are afraid, or against these rights being granted to any of these other groups, rather than saying this is "pure discrimination." That is like saying the Constitutional Amendment in 1870 granting voting rights regardless of race or color was pure discrimination because it didn't include gender, which didn't get an amendment for another fifty years. Should all non-Caucasian men have waited another fifty years until society as a whole was ready to give women the same voting rights? Was it fair to women? Not in retrospect of course, but at the time that was the most that could be accomplished, and it was not without controversy even so. Civil rights happen in increments. When society is ready it expands the rights as it sees fit. This is EXPANDING and extending rights to MORE people, so it can hardly be called pure discrimination. Perfect? Perhaps not if you are the transgender bisexual polygamist into threesomes (I rolled all your examples into one to give you something to really freak out about), but I imagine even they (if there was such a thing) would support it as expanding rights even though they would probably realize society as a whole is not yet ready to grant them those same rights.
Poi

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Jan 9, 2010
 
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
You should just come out and say you are afraid, or against these rights being granted to any of these other groups, rather than saying this is "pure discrimination." That is like saying the Constitutional Amendment in 1870 granting voting rights regardless of race or color was pure discrimination because it didn't include gender, which didn't get an amendment for another fifty years. Should all non-Caucasian men have waited another fifty years until society as a whole was ready to give women the same voting rights? Was it fair to women? Not in retrospect of course, but at the time that was the most that could be accomplished, and it was not without controversy even so. Civil rights happen in increments. When society is ready it expands the rights as it sees fit. This is EXPANDING and extending rights to MORE people, so it can hardly be called pure discrimination. Perfect? Perhaps not if you are the transgender bisexual polygamist into threesomes (I rolled all your examples into one to give you something to really freak out about), but I imagine even they (if there was such a thing) would support it as expanding rights even though they would probably realize society as a whole is not yet ready to grant them those same rights.
There is nothing difficult about this.

Just pass a law saying that any group of consenting adults can form a "civil union" or even a "marriage".

What are you scared of? If you are concerned about true "civil rights", then lets just get it done with one swoop. Why not?
Mind your own business

Ewa Beach, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Jan 9, 2010
 
SpeakingTruth wrote:
<quoted text>
We the people of Hawaii should determine what kind of tourism we want to perpetuate in Hawaii and NOT SELL OUT FOR ANOTHER BUCK! Our state motto is "The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness". Two gays cannot even perpetuate the human species...NO, do I don't think so. THE "ALOHA STATE" CAN ALSO MEAN WE STAND FOR TOUGH LOVE...WE HAVE A STANDARD TO KEEP...example, would you give your friend the keys to his car if he is intoxicated? No!
Speaking truth? More like speaking trash...

WHAT ARE WE SELLING OUT FOR ANOTHER BUCK? Gaming? Prostitution? We know those things go on all the time, but when people's lifestyles are judged by others that is selling out? MORALITY?? More and more countries are recognizing marriage between a couple REGARDLESS of whether and not "society" approves of their union (no matter what the sex). Sooner or later gay marriage will be commonplace, and those discriminating will be violating international law. Just read the news, my friend.

And like I said, MONEY TALKS and BS WALKS. Bigots don't pay the bills anymore, but Gay tax money is just as green as straight money. And even though they can't have kids biologically, they still pay other people's quest medical bills to immunize their kids. Perhaps more opposite couples should practice BIRTH CONTROL the way they gays do. Then we'd have less stupid people talking smack and pretending to "speak the truth."

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of149
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

14 Users are viewing the Honolulu Forum right now

Search the Honolulu Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Lets think of banners we can fly across Hawaii'... 9 min Joe Balls 8
obamacare busted! 2 hr Leeward Outlier 7
Abercrombie Chickens Out of Three of Four Debates 7 hr District 1 11
Last Post Wins (Apr '11) 7 hr District 1 2,125
OBAMA COUNTDOWN for DAYS LEFT In Office UNTIL N... (Jan '14) 8 hr Guru 1,656
Mayor asks residents to report aerial advertising 10 hr Joe Balls 20
Casemiro: My time with Real Madrid was unforg... 10 hr chamroeunterry 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••