Letters to the Editor - Letters

Letters to the Editor - Letters

There are 38 comments on the Honolulu Star-Bulletin story from Jan 12, 2010, titled Letters to the Editor - Letters. In it, Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that:

Gov. Linda Lingle argues that Hawaii, in this time of economic crisis, cannot afford to address discrimination against LGBT residents .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
alice

Hanalei, HI

#22 Jan 12, 2010
sorry..I p[refer Kimo to Jack in the box
Pau

Los Angeles, CA

#23 Jan 12, 2010
smilingbob wrote:
<quoted text>
marriage is a bedrock of society?!? that's laughable, especially when you see a 55% national divorce rate and drive-through wedding chapels all over vegas.
since you think marriage is the glue that is holding our society together, perhaps you should also support a no divorce clause with every marriage and a severe monetary fine for each instance of infidelity.
The 55% rate is deceptive also. It's probably substantially higher. There are several states that do not have to report the occurrence of a divorce. California is one of them. Hawaii also is part of the non-reporting states.
Lefty

Koloa, HI

#24 Jan 12, 2010
The legislature needs to forget the social engineering and concentrate on the economy. Reducing the cost of government and creating the conditions that foster business and the generation of jobs int he private sector. Anything other than that is a time waster.
ex-Detroit Lion

Nashville, TN

#25 Jan 12, 2010
Rikki S wrote:
<quoted text>
Would someone give me a factual answer about why same sex unions shouldn't be allowed and how it effects them? All I have ever heard is the Biblical version, but since the world is made up of more than just "Christians", other views need to be respected. Facts please, not personal emotions, on how same sex unions/marriages negatively effects you.
Yes, I will. They want FULL benefits. That costs the taxpayer, ME. If they want a "spiritual" union in Hawai'i, CA, anywhere else, fine, but NO benefits given such as those to "straight" marriages, ie., man and a woman. No transgenders, transvestites, bi-sexuals, hormone therapy recepients, etc. MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD.

Since: Oct 09

Honolulu, HI

#26 Jan 12, 2010
Paul wrote:
For all of the people submitting letters on Civil Unions and the passage through the senate, put it before the people and let them decide.
If we do that, which of your civil rights can we vote on? YOUR right to free speech or how about your right to vote?

We do not vote on ANY ONE'S civil rights. We did not vote to end slavery, give woman the right to vote and we should not be voting on Civil Unions!

Since: Oct 09

Honolulu, HI

#27 Jan 12, 2010
Lefty wrote:
The legislature needs to forget the social engineering and concentrate on the economy. Reducing the cost of government and creating the conditions that foster business and the generation of jobs int he private sector. Anything other than that is a time waster.
Really when they pass Civil Unions they will create jobs and income for the state.

When was the last time the government able to that without raising taxes or raiding a fund?

The jobs from all the celebrations of love after the Civil Unions are performed and the income comes from the issuance of civil unions licenses. If they do it before Valentine's Day that will just help push the economy forward. The LGBT community knows how to throw a party!

“Bullish on Equal Rights”

Since: Dec 06

Rocky Mountains

#28 Jan 12, 2010
ex-Detroit Lion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I will. They want FULL benefits. That costs the taxpayer, ME. If they want a "spiritual" union in Hawai'i, CA, anywhere else, fine, but NO benefits given such as those to "straight" marriages, ie., man and a woman. No transgenders, transvestites, bi-sexuals, hormone therapy recepients, etc. MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD.
Do you have benefits? Why can't they? What will it cost you? Give me the facts and the numbers to prove your point, not your fear!

Okay, you have defined your theory of limiting marriage to a "MAN and a WOMAN". That being the case, please give me a definition of "man" and "woman" that is 100% accurate so we can clarify who can marry who.
Short Left Index Finger

Georgetown, Canada

#29 Jan 12, 2010
ex-Detroit Lion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I will. They want FULL benefits. That costs the taxpayer, ME. If they want a "spiritual" union in Hawai'i, CA, anywhere else, fine, but NO benefits given such as those to "straight" marriages, ie., man and a woman. No transgenders, transvestites, bi-sexuals, hormone therapy recepients, etc. MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD.
You heteros who choose to have children out of wedlock and go on welfare,mothers allowance for the next 20 years cost gay taxpayers way to much money.
ex-Detroit Lion

Nashville, TN

#30 Jan 12, 2010
Rikki S wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have benefits? Why can't they? What will it cost you? Give me the facts and the numbers to prove your point, not your fear!
Okay, you have defined your theory of limiting marriage to a "MAN and a WOMAN". That being the case, please give me a definition of "man" and "woman" that is 100% accurate so we can clarify who can marry who.
OK, granted, maybe not so much the taxpayer, me, but the employer. You've got any idea how much it costs a small-medium business to give employees FULL benefits? And I'm not even into The Bible, so don't paint me with that brush. This whole thing in America is destroying the very fabric it was built on. What's this nonsense about transgenders wanting to marry bi-sexual gender re-assignments? You all gone mad?
carronade

Honolulu, HI

#31 Jan 12, 2010
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
We did not vote to end slavery,
Well no and yes.

No in that we fought our bloodiest war, the war between the states, and in the process settled the question of slavery as a byproduct of settling the central issue of cessation. Surely you are not suggesting ANOTHER bloody engagement that pits citizen against citizen, eh?

But yes we did in fact vote to approve both XIII and XIV Amendments to our Constitution.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
We did not vote to .... give woman the right to vote !
Flat Stone Wrong: Amendment XIX was indeed voted on, ratified Aug 18, 1920.

In any event the CITIZENS will determine whether it is appropriate to fundamentally alter and redefine the Sacrament of Marriage which has for thousands of years joined one man and one woman in matrimony, often Holy Matrimony. Not only that but they will determine this via their government representatives in a process called voting.

If the democratic processes that are the lifeblood of our Constitutional Republic are not to your liking .... well, surely you can finish THAT thought, eh?
MeNotSure

Asheville, NC

#32 Jan 12, 2010
carronade wrote:
<quoted text>
But yes we did in fact vote to approve both XIII and XIV Amendments to our Constitution.
Amendment XIX was indeed voted on, ratified Aug 18, 1920.
I was unaware that US citizens voted to ratify amendments to the Constitution. I thought state legislatures voted to ratify any amendment proposed in congress. Any source for this?

“Bullish on Equal Rights”

Since: Dec 06

Rocky Mountains

#33 Jan 12, 2010
ex-Detroit Lion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, granted, maybe not so much the taxpayer, me, but the employer. You've got any idea how much it costs a small-medium business to give employees FULL benefits? And I'm not even into The Bible, so don't paint me with that brush. This whole thing in America is destroying the very fabric it was built on. What's this nonsense about transgenders wanting to marry bi-sexual gender re-assignments? You all gone mad?
Funny you should bring up the cost. Several years ago San Franciso, California decided to include transgenders and all associated costs to their policy. They did a study and felt that an increase in premiums would be necessary to cover those increased numbers and their treatment. Remember, this is SAN FRANCISCO. At the end of teh first year, the found out that there was no appreciable effect to the fund with transgenders, so they rolled the premiums back to the original cost.

Yes, I am well aware of the cost to the businesses. It is astronomical and getting worse. Don't blame trans, gay, lesbian....for that. Blame our increasing technology and the "need" to have the highest level of technology used in the treatment and diagnosis of every ailment from a sprained ankle to a stroke. Forget about what "used to work". Let's spend money so we have a "solid" diagnosis and did "everything we could for the patient"! Yes, I am an RN who sees this all to often. Put the blame where it lays and don't play chicken little!
Mike

United States

#34 Jan 12, 2010
Tell Lynn's mother that it's nice to be an independent senior,but when you take forever to cross the road, it is times to be in a wheelchair before the green light turns red and the cars want to proceed.
carronade

Honolulu, HI

#35 Jan 12, 2010
MeNotSure wrote:
I was unaware that US citizens voted to ratify amendments to the Constitution. I thought state legislatures voted to ratify any amendment proposed in congress. Any source for this?
Your understanding is fundamentally sound.

Ours is a government of 'res publica', a thing of the people from which we get our word 'republic'. We vote for those who will represent us in the halls of power. We loan them OUR power for two years (in the case of the House which exercises the MOST power on our behalf) four years (President who exercises the next most power), six years (Senate which in theory has the least power of the three, but considerable advisory influence).

If these hired hands -- temps, actually -- exercise power in a way that satisfies the Sovereign (us) we may renew their contracts, or we can give them the heave ho and replace them with others to do our bidding.

In all cases we the sovereign citizens of this Republic retain then whip hand....and if we are responsible we employn the whip over our hired hands in such a way as to "encourage" them to exercise due diligence in pursuit in their duties.

It is for this reason that we ALWAYS get exactly the goverment that we DESERVE.
carronade

Honolulu, HI

#36 Jan 12, 2010
forgive the extra 'n's.

my small motor skills would bring tears to the eyes of a statue.

Since: Oct 09

Honolulu, HI

#37 Jan 12, 2010
carronade - Can you please tell us which ballot issue or proposition ended the ban on inter-racial marriage?

Which one ended slavery or gave women the right to vote? They were not ballot issues.

Marriage is not thousands of years old. The modern version - based on love is less than 100 years old. Up until the early 1900's women were betrothed and had really no say in the matter. In fact that is still the case for some.

Marriage has it's origin in protection of wealth, blood lines and there for transfer of power.

Marrying for love is a relatively new concept when you look at the total history of man and civilization. So yes the definition of marriage has changed as we have grown and educated ourselves as a society.

But we are not talking about marriage here we are talking about Civil Unions - as any real lawyer or half way educated person will tell you you cannot switch words in the law and have them mean the same thing.

So do not bring up 1998 - that is 12 years ago and a lot has changed and that was about marriage NOT civil unions. What other really old data would you like the legislature to make their decisions on?

Do not worry passing Civil Unions is still treating the LGBT community as second class citizens so that should let you sleep at night ;-)
carronade

Honolulu, HI

#38 Jan 12, 2010
An added thought.

The founders worried about tyranny of a centralized, powerful federal establishment which is the reason behind Amendments IX and X giving teeth to the rights of sovereign states.

Because we sovereign citizens over the last 80 years have been slackers and inattentive, we have allowed Feds to grow strong at the expense of States.....like Dracula sucking the life from the neck of his young female victim, while we stood idly by, sometimes even applauding this ill conceived shift in power away from people and toward centralized and ever increasing federal tyranny and intrusiveness.

It is late in the day, but we citizens CAN reverse this process if we have the WILL. The instruments of our raw power now lie moldering and rusting in the dust at our feet....pitifully underutilized.

IF we DO decide to reverse this power flow, much heavy lifting lies ahead.
carronade

Honolulu, HI

#39 Jan 12, 2010
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
please tell us which ballot issue or proposition ended the ban on inter-racial marriage?
That was decided by the citizens of individual states at different times. For some states there was never such a ban.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
Which one ended slavery or gave women the right to vote? They were not ballot issues.
You have already been given info regarding specific Amendments which were approved according to the will of the people state by state.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
Marriage is not thousands of years old. The modern version - based on love is less than 100 years old.
You are free to hold that opinion if you wish, but you do not speak ex cathedra as an authority on ths subject. The holy Sacrament of Marriage binding one man and one woman in Holy Matrimoney is indeed thousands of years old.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
Up until the early 1900's women were betrothed and had really no say in the matter. In fact that is still the case for some.Marriage has it's origin in protection of wealth, blood lines and there for transfer of power.Marrying for love is a relatively new concept when you look at the total history of man and ivilization.
Interesting background but not relevant to the issue at hand.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
So yes the definition of marriage has changed as we have grown and educated ourselves as a society.
Nice try; no sale. The traditional definition binding one man and one woman obtains, persists, and prevails.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
But we are not talking about marriage here
Oh, but we are and THAT is the nub of YOUR problem.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
we are talking about Civil Unions - as any real lawyer or half way educated person will tell you you cannot switch words in the law and have them mean the same thing.
No we are talking about whether to redefine marriage as meaning something other than the union of one man and one woman and no amount of slithering, squirming, or maneuvering will allow you to convulse yourself sufficiently to pass through the eye of this needle. Lawyersf are not going to decide this; the people will, your fellow citizens. If you think to use our power corrupted courts to ram this down the throats of your fellow citizens you may find that task thornier than you now suppose.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
So do not bring up 1998 - that is 12 years ago and a lot has changed and that was about marriage NOT civil unions. What other really old data would you like the legislature to make their decisions on?
Please do not presume to order me about.

As luck would have it my wife and I were precinct workers in 1998 and we saw folks in their 70's and 80's who had NEVER before voted who showed up SPECIFICALLY to defeat this ballot measure. Now if you want to advance the argument that the strength of resolve of your fellow citizens to defend traditional marriage has weakened over the last decade, go ahead and try to make your case, but you may be disappointed with REALITY.
Michael Golojuch Jr wrote:
Do not worry passing Civil Unions is still treating the LGBT community as second class citizens so that should let you sleep at night ;-)
Our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters continue to enjoy the full panoply of rights spelled out in the Constitution. How they are treated will depend on how they comport themselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Honolulu Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
East Pacific Hurricanes 2015 10 min Michelle has a cock 2
The DEMOCRAT run Hawaii 1 hr Joe Balls 27
News Vice President Joe Biden visits Hawaii (Jul '13) 1 hr Joe Balls 21
OBAMA HATERS You Wasted A Decade of YOUR LIFE 3 hr American_Infidel 4
500,000 gallons of raw sewage dumped into the o... 3 hr American_Infidel 3
News City officials making preparations for incoming... 4 hr Joe Balls 6
What Hawaii is really like. (Jan '08) 10 hr District 1 263
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Honolulu Mortgages