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.

“PRESIDENT TRUMP & VP PENCE”

Since: Mar 09

WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

#684 Sep 8, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... the psychiatrists say it's YOU that needs help.
No, it's YOU.

“PRESIDENT TRUMP & VP PENCE”

Since: Mar 09

WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

#685 Sep 8, 2013
Don't let the gays convince into believing that were the weird ones....stay focused on the FACT...that THEY'RE the weird ones....always was...always will be.

“PRESIDENT TRUMP & VP PENCE”

Since: Mar 09

WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

#686 Sep 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove everyone is born heterosexual.
Prove that they're not.

Well?

“PRESIDENT TRUMP & VP PENCE”

Since: Mar 09

WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

#687 Sep 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

We'll have all 50 states by the end of the decade at the latest.
teehee.

“PRESIDENT TRUMP & VP PENCE”

Since: Mar 09

WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

#688 Sep 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>sure pal, sure...
every single study done shows different...
but whatever you have to tell yourself to back up your prejudice and fear...
Go get help for your untreated medical disorder. A disorder that the APA was forced to remove from the mental disorder list because of rabid militant gay threats, intimidation and relentless harassment.

Youre a wacko and you know it.
see the light

El Paso, TX

#689 Sep 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean "rush"? Hawaii has been fighting for Marriage Equality since 1993.........it's about damn time they finish this!!!
No, there's more inportant things going on now, like Syria.
Aaryn Gries

Honolulu, HI

#690 Sep 8, 2013
see the light wrote:
<quoted text>No, there's more inportant things going on now, like Syria.
I'm a Texan and i can do more than one thing at a time, why can't you Billy Sue?
Alice

Mililani, HI

#691 Sep 8, 2013
Instead of Mr. and Mrs you have Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs. That just don't sound rite. Maybe it just me but I will stick with Mrs (sigh) someday.
1 post removed
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#693 Sep 8, 2013
Imposter Alert wrote:
These posts are not worthy of topix.
Censorship is un-American. You must not be from around here.
Imposter Alert

Honolulu, HI

#694 Sep 8, 2013
This post is not worthy of topix.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#695 Sep 8, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
Don't let the gays convince into believing that were the weird ones....stay focused on the FACT...that THEY'RE the weird ones....always was...always will be.
About 10% of the population identifies themselves as gay, bi or non-hetero. The general opinion of whether there should be a change in the law to accommodate this 10% is mostly divided along religious lines. Frankly, I think this question is so far afield from "real" problems like Syria and ongoing racial discrimination that it's laughable. Gays being on an equal footing as a young heterosexual couple wanting to start a family is just an obtuse hoped-for parallel.
Should they be afforded the opportunity to form domestic partnerships? Absolutely.
If deemed fit, should they able to adopt children and raise a family? Certainly.
Is it marriage in the traditional sense?
No.
Is the goal to redefine an institution based on religious doctrine? Yes.
Should religious doctrine inside the boundaries of law be subject to outside influence? Absolutely not.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kahului, HI

#696 Sep 8, 2013
Imposter Alert wrote:
This post is not worthy of topix.
Topix has "Worthiness Nazis."
Kewl.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#697 Sep 8, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>But you are not in fact excluded if states already had domestic partnership laws. Hawaii does.
What you seek is to redefine an emotionally based institution started by religious people, thus threatening their sensibilities. For right or wrong, that's why things like DOMA arise.
How is gay marriage different from domestic partnerships of convenience or involving multiple partners who "love" each other? Gay marriage is perceived as a slippery slope. How do you address those opinions? In a civil discourse, everyones' reasoned opinion counts, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.
Domestic partnerships aren't marriage.

Domestic partnerships have no federal recognition.

I DON'T CARE if your "religious sensibilities" are threatened; we're talking about civil marriage rights.

Slippery slopes only exist in the minds of those opposed to something.

Yes, a "reasoned" opinion counts- not those based of irrational religious grounds.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#698 Sep 8, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>Those are not the only arguments. There is also:
Would redefine the structure of a fundamental social institution (interracial marriage would not have, but abolition of slavery did--this would be a point in your favor, so go with it)
Goes against the role of procreation and nuclear family as a societal unit (Yet we let old people beyond their fertile years marry out of the romantic notion of love, and half of all marriages end in divorce anyway--still, the logical conclusion if gays are let marry then would be to abandon marriage as a social institution entirely, which in the minds of DOMA supporters is what gay marriage will lead to)
Is an extension of existing rights. Just as a handicapped person can be given relatively equal access to certain facilities and sites, the access (for example to a state maintained hiking trail) will never be "the same." So too will access to "marriage" not be exactly the same if certain elements of it are impractical. Will people play the gay married couple card to gain work-related benefits, etc.? Will gays someday demand to be married in Christian churches by ordained priests? Will there be lawsuits? I think it will happen. The point here is that existing domestic partnerships are the equivalent of the handicapped ramp. What more do LGBTs want?
Redefine marriage? Yep, used by those opposed to inter-racial marriage.

Procreation? Yep, used by those opposed to inter-racial marriage.

Separate but equal? Yep, used by those opposed to inter-racial marriage.

Churches forced to marry them? Yep, used by those opposed to inter-racial marriage.

We want equal treatment under the law; nothing more nothing less.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#699 Sep 8, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
Don't let the gays convince into believing that were the weird ones....stay focused on the FACT...that THEY'RE the weird ones....always was...always will be.
Focus on whatever you want; it won't stop us from getting marriage equality nationwide.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#700 Sep 8, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove that they're not.
Well?
I was born gay.

That's all the proof needed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#701 Sep 8, 2013
Alice wrote:
Instead of Mr. and Mrs you have Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs. That just don't sound rite. Maybe it just me but I will stick with Mrs (sigh) someday.
That's YOUR choice.

WE have the same right to make the choice for ourselves.

I've been "Mr & Mr" for 26+ years. Sounds right to me.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#702 Sep 8, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>About 10% of the population identifies themselves as gay, bi or non-hetero. The general opinion of whether there should be a change in the law to accommodate this 10% is mostly divided along religious lines. Frankly, I think this question is so far afield from "real" problems like Syria and ongoing racial discrimination that it's laughable. Gays being on an equal footing as a young heterosexual couple wanting to start a family is just an obtuse hoped-for parallel.
Should they be afforded the opportunity to form domestic partnerships? Absolutely.
If deemed fit, should they able to adopt children and raise a family? Certainly.
Is it marriage in the traditional sense?
No.
Is the goal to redefine an institution based on religious doctrine? Yes.
Should religious doctrine inside the boundaries of law be subject to outside influence? Absolutely not.
My young nephew is about to start a family with his husband right after he gets back from his latest military deployment.

Marriage in the "traditional sense" was the woman was the legal property of her husband.

Guess what? Traditions change.

Civil marriage has nothing to do with any particular religious doctrine.

Some religions support same-sex couples marrying.

ONE religious doctrine DOES NOT get to determine civil law for all.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#703 Sep 8, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>About 10% of the population identifies themselves as gay, bi or non-hetero. The general opinion of whether there should be a change in the law to accommodate this 10% is mostly divided along religious lines. Frankly, I think this question is so far afield from "real" problems like Syria and ongoing racial discrimination that it's laughable. Gays being on an equal footing as a young heterosexual couple wanting to start a family is just an obtuse hoped-for parallel.
Should they be afforded the opportunity to form domestic partnerships? Absolutely.
If deemed fit, should they able to adopt children and raise a family? Certainly.
Is it marriage in the traditional sense?
No.
Is the goal to redefine an institution based on religious doctrine? Yes.
Should religious doctrine inside the boundaries of law be subject to outside influence? Absolutely not.
amazing that you don't have even the slightest clue as to the topic you are talking about. marriage was not created by religion. marriage is a social construct and the first recorded histories of it show it to be entirely a State sponsored institution.

the christian church didn't get into the marriage game until the 14th century, and then only to bless the state sponsored marriage on the steps of the church, they didn't even want it in the church...that took almost another century.

you really should learn about the topic you are on and the religious cult you claim to be a member of...lest you look so foolish again.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#704 Sep 8, 2013
see the light wrote:
<quoted text>No, there's more inportant things going on now, like Syria.
There are a half dozen discussions on the topic ...
pick one....

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 3 min Go Trump 107
News 100 Days In, Appalachia Holds Cautious Optimism... 4 min Jim-ca 27
News Newt Gingrich's first wife, Jackie, dies (Aug '13) 4 min Kelly 107
News Racism motivated Trump voters more than authori... 9 min Retribution 426
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min SoetoroSucked 265,586
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min VetnorsGate 1,523,958
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 16 min PRES DONALD TRUMP 25,358
News White House refuses to hand over documents to F... 32 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 239
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr Ronald 289
More from around the web