HI Gov Gives Gay Marriage Bill To Law...

HI Gov Gives Gay Marriage Bill To Lawmakers

There are 1122 comments on the EDGE story from Aug 29, 2013, titled HI Gov Gives Gay Marriage Bill To Lawmakers. In it, EDGE reports that:

Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Wednesday presented state lawmakers with a draft of legislation that would legalize gay marriage in Hawaii.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Trump fixing Obama's mess”

Since: Mar 09

& Making America Great Again!

#785 Sep 8, 2013
Akao wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all important but some of us still drag our knuckles when we walk. I'm extending a hand to pull you up and for you to join the 21th century.
Just because its the 21st century doesn't mean homosexuality is an acceptable behavior....somethings will never be acceptable behavior like murder, stealing, killing, homosexuality, etc....
Akao

Honolulu, HI

#786 Sep 8, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because its the 21st century doesn't mean homosexuality is an acceptable behavior....somethings will never be acceptable behavior like murder, stealing, killing, homosexuality, etc....
Knowledge is power and you are powerless.
Alice

Mililani, HI

#787 Sep 8, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text> LOLOL, Who in their right mind would choose to be black?
Well Joey I believe you have it wrong. They don't wish to be black but when it comes to lovers that pick blacks dudes because they are hung like a bull. White women enjoy big black slippery long Louisiana snakes better than a tiny white/skinny little worm white men's usually have.I must say if I had a choice I would pick the big long black snake myself. Oh my yes indeed.
Alice

Mililani, HI

#788 Sep 8, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
PRove it!
You gay Infidel and that is widely known.
Alice

Mililani, HI

#789 Sep 8, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
You people lie to society and hide who you really are. You cant be trusted...You need to post credible links to back up every one of your statements.
Well....were waiting.
I saw a picture of you in a sun dress playing hide the 12" hotdogs with JBalls at CosTco.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#790 Sep 8, 2013
Alice wrote:
<quoted text>I must say if I had a choice I would pick the big long black snake myself. Oh my yes indeed.
Harry, you've made that clear many times.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#791 Sep 8, 2013
Imposter Alert wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody takes impostor comments as credible. Quit hiding partial jap man we won't lock you up.
But you locked up my grandparents, Haole.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#792 Sep 8, 2013
Imposter Alert wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody takes impostor comments as credible. Quit hiding partial jap man we won't lock you up.
Just another thought--I must really bug you if you remember things I've written. Thanks for reading and remembering.
Cheers to me for a job well done.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#793 Sep 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't care less about your irrational religious views, until you try legislating them.
Since we're not a theocracy, the constitution trumps your religious views.
That's why you're not allowed to discriminate against people in public accommodation just because your religious beliefs may dictate such.
You are also making a core assumption that I am religious, which I'm not. On some levels, gay marriage is not an affront only to the whack job 700 Club types. Some people, like me, believe that marriage is something other than what LGBTs would have it be. It is a societal institution not to be changed lightly in a manner heavily fueled by emotion. Just as Affirmative Action looked good on paper, it turns out that there are many pitfalls still. Making a fundamental redefinition of an important social construct must be thought out carefully.
And just because we don't have a theocracy doesn't mean religion is irrelevant. This is a democracy, and how the citizenry feels and the way they vote matters. The Religious Right is a powerful group, and their voices are as important as yours. Why not put this matter to a general vote as a constitutional amendment in the Hawaii Constitution?
By the way, the US Constitution is silent on gay marriage, and so it really doesn't trump what you think it does.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#794 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
This is a democracy, and how the citizenry feels and the way they vote matters.
This Country is NOT now, nor has it EVER been a democracy......we are a "republic, not a democracy."

A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy.
http://thisnation.com/question/011.html

A majority of the people may elect representatives to represent them, but we as the people DON'T actually make policies or laws!!!
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#795 Sep 9, 2013
Your civics lesson does nothing to address my assertion.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#796 Sep 9, 2013
And, by common usage, "democracy" means a government in which power comes from the people. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.

But thanks for playing.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#797 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
And, by common usage, "democracy" means a government in which power comes from the people. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.
But thanks for playing.
See, our power DOESN'T come from the people per say.......it is GIVEN to our elected officials and if you'd bother to read the link that was provided.......you'd understand that!!!
Imposter Alert

Honolulu, HI

#798 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
And, by common usage, "democracy" means a government in which power comes from the people. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.
But thanks for playing.
Who is playing your Gil persona or your District 1 persona or .

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#799 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
And, by common usage, "democracy" means a government in which power comes from the people. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy.
But thanks for playing.
So, you lose but you still make the claim that lost, while pretending that you won?

That's just not sensible.
Imposter Alert

Honolulu, HI

#800 Sep 9, 2013
Has a multiple personality disorder. Walks around with a rusty old sword screaming, "Carry Harry?".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#801 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>Taken to its logical conclusion, if there is no governmental interest in incest, polygamy, and polyandry, should those also be legalized?
I would propose we go the other way and have classifications of marriage:
First tier, for procreation or adoption in creating a nuclear family unit;
Second tier, for "love" sans the possibility of children, between two consenting adults regardless of gender or blood relation;
Third tier, for any other relationship deemed by individuals to be desirable to their pursuit of happiness, including polygamy and polyandry, and sham marriages of convenience.
Gays would be allowed to marry under each circumstance, depending on their purpose. This kind of social contract differentiation would please everybody, right?
The restrictions on number and incest are well established, just like the restrictions on age and informed consent. They have been challenged in courts and found to provide compelling and legitimate governmental interests in protecting other citizens.

These are separate restrictions, and removing one does not require removing any of the others. The restriction on gender provides no governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

Your rating proposal has many inherent problems, including that it judges some marriages as worth less than others, for no apparent reason other than to label the relationships of some as worth less. It provides no compelling and legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#802 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>You are also making a core assumption that I am religious, which I'm not. On some levels, gay marriage is not an affront only to the whack job 700 Club types. Some people, like me, believe that marriage is something other than what LGBTs would have it be. It is a societal institution not to be changed lightly in a manner heavily fueled by emotion. Just as Affirmative Action looked good on paper, it turns out that there are many pitfalls still. Making a fundamental redefinition of an important social construct must be thought out carefully.
And just because we don't have a theocracy doesn't mean religion is irrelevant. This is a democracy, and how the citizenry feels and the way they vote matters. The Religious Right is a powerful group, and their voices are as important as yours. Why not put this matter to a general vote as a constitutional amendment in the Hawaii Constitution?
By the way, the US Constitution is silent on gay marriage, and so it really doesn't trump what you think it does.
Asking a majority who are not directly affected to vote on the equal rights of an unpopular minority is like a pack of wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It cannot be considered fair, and that is why we have a constitution which requires equal treatment for all persons, not just for the popular majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#803 Sep 9, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
You people lie to society and hide who you really are. You cant be trusted...You need to post credible links to back up every one of your statements.
Well....were waiting.
I believe someone else already provided 3 links that support this information, while you fail to refute the information provided and fail to provide any links.

Your prejudice relies on demeaning, dehumanizing pejoratives alone. You have no compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#804 Sep 9, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>Taken to its logical conclusion, if there is no governmental interest in incest, polygamy, and polyandry, should those also be legalized?
I would propose we go the other way and have classifications of marriage:
Logical conclusion? STOP RIGHT THERE. The slippery slope argument is a logical FALLACY.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 19 min American Independent 983
News Sundance: Chlo Grace Moretz goes to gay convers... 1 hr Aspirin Between M... 1
News Urged to resign over rants 1 hr Aspirin Between M... 13
News Trump appointee resigns after racist, sexist an... 1 hr Imprtnrd 90
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr Aspirin Between M... 651
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr David 17,638
News Dolly Parton Discusses Gay Rumors, Losing a Dra... (Nov '12) 3 hr Fake News 13
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 5 hr DebraE 27,301
More from around the web