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.

Leeward lolo

Honolulu, HI

#911 Sep 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text> you get aids from mosquito bites...
and wood ticks

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#912 Sep 10, 2013
Opinion wrote:
Doorknobs! Toiletseats! He is afraid of catching AIDS.
Maybe he shouldn't have responded to my posts then.

HIV+ since 1990!

Joe you better RUN and get tested! The electrons that put me on the internet might carry AIDS!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#913 Sep 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
For the record, we don't call all the faithful irrational & stupid; only the anti-gay ones.
There is no way to have a productive debate with an anti-gay religious person.
That's why we just go around them and get marriage equality anyway we can- courts, legislature, voters.
And the best part of it all is we get lots of help from people of faith who aren't even gay or lesbian!

THANK GOD!

(no pun intended)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#914 Sep 10, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he should stop barebacking.
Especially since all the women he knows have a fishy smell!

Heck I'm a gay man and even I know a healthy vagina doesn't smell bad.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#915 Sep 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ummm...hellooo! that's how you get pregnant. you get aids from mosquito bites...
It always amazes me to see people make jokes about such a serious disease.
What's next Helen Keller jokes?
Fart Jokes?
1 post removed
Francine

Honolulu, HI

#917 Sep 10, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text> Neil wasting taxpayers' money. Nothing new about that.
What I don't like is having you rip us taxpayers off by buying illegal food stamps for pennies on the dollar azzhole. Get a job flipping hamburgers and be a man for once in your sad azz life.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#918 Sep 10, 2013
Francine wrote:
<quoted text>What I don't like is having you rip us taxpayers off by buying illegal food stamps for pennies on the dollar azzhole. Get a job flipping hamburgers and be a man for once in your sad azz life.
Buying illegal food stamps? What the.....

You've gone off the deep end, dipshit. Report to the hospital for an immediate Thorazine drip.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#919 Sep 10, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Buying illegal food stamps? What the.....
You've gone off the deep end, dipshit. Report to the hospital for an immediate Thorazine drip.
I buy LEGAL food stamps, Bobbie. You should just stay in the kitchen and make yourself useful. Clean something.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#920 Sep 10, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text> I buy LEGAL food stamps, Bobbie. You should just stay in the kitchen and make yourself useful. Clean something.
It's against the law to buy foodstamps. It's a federal offense AND a felony.
Leeward lolo

Honolulu, HI

#921 Sep 10, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text> I buy LEGAL food stamps, Bobbie. You should just stay in the kitchen and make yourself useful. Clean something.
Of course there legal but you aren't a authorized user and STFU path. liar.
Conchita Balls

United States

#922 Sep 10, 2013
Joey needs the stamps to feed me and the little bastards.
1 post removed
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kailua Kona, HI

#924 Sep 11, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. What the framers of the constitution intended? They intended for women to have no rights and for slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a man.
When a person believes in something for which there is no evidence, no scientifically verifiable proof, that IS the definition of irrational. You are free to believe whatever you wish. You are NOT free to define it as 'rational' when it OBVIOUSLY is not.
"Oh, puh-leez?"
Such rationally strategic rhetoric is certainly proof you are as rational as your post.
Does the constitution address same sex marriage? No.
Have your cited black and female elements been rectified constitutionally? Yes.
Your point?
Not sure.

My point is that the cited legal case law is NOT related to SSM, and yet SSM advocates continue to tie them and the constitution together.

Irrational indeed.
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ

Kailua Kona, HI

#925 Sep 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it's okay for the EVANGELISTIC FUNDAMENTALIST or other supposed religious folks to condemn us to hell according to their religious beliefs, accuse us of harming children, call us names like fudge "P's", carpet m*nchers and everything else, but we are suppose to calm the waters and take what they dish out, right? Sorry, NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
Is that what I said? Are you setting up an argument you can win?
So, people create epithets and you wage a war against all?
You're sounding like GW's "With me or against me."
Militant gay activists are no better than those evangelicals you cite, just on the other end of the spectrum.
That must disturb you to read, but think about it. It's true.
Imposter Alert

Honolulu, HI

#926 Sep 11, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>"Oh, puh-leez?"
Such rationally strategic rhetoric is certainly proof you are as rational as your post.
Does the constitution address same sex marriage? No.
Have your cited black and female elements been rectified constitutionally? Yes.
Your point?
Not sure.
My point is that the cited legal case law is NOT related to SSM, and yet SSM advocates continue to tie them and the constitution together.
Irrational indeed.
Same BS different night.
Imposeur Alert

Kailua Kona, HI

#927 Sep 11, 2013
Yes, you do.

“LIFE'S TO SHORT TO LET TOPIX”

Since: Aug 08

TROLLS GET YA DOWN:-)

#928 Sep 11, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
Nothing you say is true......just an opinion!!!
Leeward Lolo

Honolulu, HI

#929 Sep 11, 2013
Conchita Balls wrote:
Joey needs the stamps to feed me and the little bastards.
That's not what he told me. The stamps are for the little bastards; you have a hefty feeding trough in your backyard that he fills with swill daily.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#930 Sep 11, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>"Oh, puh-leez?"
Such rationally strategic rhetoric is certainly proof you are as rational as your post.
Does the constitution address same sex marriage? No.
Have your cited black and female elements been rectified constitutionally? Yes.
Your point?
Not sure.
My point is that the cited legal case law is NOT related to SSM, and yet SSM advocates continue to tie them and the constitution together.
Irrational indeed.
Correct, the legal case law is related to MARRIAGE. It doesn't specific heterosexual-only marriage, or opposite-sex marriage only. It simply says MARRIAGE is a fundamental right.

Same-sex couples are entitled to exercise that very same right as opposite-sex couples.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#931 Sep 11, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>"Oh, puh-leez?"
Such rationally strategic rhetoric is certainly proof you are as rational as your post.
Does the constitution address same sex marriage? No.
Have your cited black and female elements been rectified constitutionally? Yes.
Your point?
Not sure.
My point is that the cited legal case law is NOT related to SSM, and yet SSM advocates continue to tie them and the constitution together.
Irrational indeed.
Again, the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage specifically, but is does say the rights not spelled out remain the rights of the people. The Supreme Court has affirmed marriage as one of those fundamental rights of all persons, protected by the constitution, 14 times.

The courts have ruled gender is not a valid restriction. Your refusal to understanding this comes from your denial that SSM and OSM are the same under the law. There is only marriage. You have no compelling, legitimate governmental interest for restriction of this right based on gender.

"To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#932 Sep 11, 2013
Scottsdale AZ PhoenixAZZ wrote:
<quoted text>Is that what I said? Are you setting up an argument you can win?
So, people create epithets and you wage a war against all?
You're sounding like GW's "With me or against me."
Militant gay activists are no better than those evangelicals you cite, just on the other end of the spectrum.
That must disturb you to read, but think about it. It's true.
You overlook the glaring and well documented difference: We are not trying to use the law to harm you.

The Catholic church, Mormon church, and others, have been spending millions to use the law to deny to us the rights they expect for themselves. We are not trying to deny to religious groups the rights they deny to us.

Your example is as flawed as saying those against segregation were the same as those supporting it. Denial of legal equality, as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution, is the key you refuse to see. Think about it. It's true.

"Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski)

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Grey Ghostmoron 1,236,090
News 'They created these people': Rand Paul blames G... 5 min Injudgement 218
News Protesters gather at Phoenix mosque under close... 5 min positronium 182
News EPA says first day of oil spill spent 'planning' 6 min xplode 11
News Clinton Foundation accused of trading ex-presid... 7 min Le Jimbo 44
News Benghazi controversy explained 7 min Le Jimbo 207
News Wyden zips among issues, colleagues, re-electio... 9 min Le Jimbo 6
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Coffee Party 189,835
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 14 min Right Wing 2,583
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min Le Jimbo 183,215
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 21 min Independent patriot 329,042
More from around the web