Gay Marriage | Hawaii | News

Civil Union Bills introduced in Hawaii

Hawaii may soon be the next state to adopt civil unions.

LavaA group of bills have been introduced in the overwhelmingly Democratic Hawaii legislature that would give same-sex couples the legal rights of marriage. Civil unions face easier prospects in Hawaii, as an amendment tacked on to the state's constitution in 1998 gives the legislature the power to define marriage as between a man and a woman if it so chooses. According to the AP, "both House and Senate Democrats are supporting the bills."

The bills have split the opinions of those who opposed same-sex marriage in the past:

"Debi Hartmann, the former director of a group that formed to stop same-sex marriage in Hawai‘i, Hawaii Future Today, said civil unions is the answer. Hartmann said she believes there needs to be a legal relationship for gays and lesbians. 'Where my position has not changed is in the defense of marriage as the union between a man and woman,' Hartmann said. 'One of the things this civil-union bill does not impact is the current marriage language.' But Kelly Rosati, executive director of Hawaii Family Forum, said the bills simply create 'marriage by another name.'"

Bills would give state recognition to gay unions [kauai world]
Hawaii Lawmakers Consider Civil Unions For Gay Couples [the hawaii channel]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. No, no, no.
    Hawaii's constitution was amended to say that the legislature has the authority to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

    It doesn't say it HAD, just that it could.

    I remind folks regularly that this is the proof that the anti-gay marriage amendments are actually anti-gay, not pro-marriage, because if they weren't, they'd let a future legislature allows same-sex couples to wed.

    I'll find the actual text in a moment.

    Posted by: tjc | Jan 31, 2007 9:26:04 AM


  2. http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html

    MARRIAGE

    Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. [Add HB 117 (1997) and election Nov 3, 1998]

    Posted by: tjc | Jan 31, 2007 9:28:30 AM


  3. Millions of Americans have absolutely NO PROBLEM with providing long-term same-sex couples with virtually all the benefits that heterosexual married couples now enjoy. Those same millions draw a distinction when asked to define marriage (for reasons that are personal to them, be it faith-based, tradition, biological, etc. -- none of which has any intent of harming or lessening a same sex couple's inclusion of said benefits and their status). Hence, civil unions has been the most discussed relationship "label" for same-sex couples because the relationships are intrinsically different. Totally appropriate and correct, IMO.

    Posted by: Stephen | Jan 31, 2007 10:54:58 AM


  4. Andy, could you fix the front page text? I know you can't change the news article, but you can stop perpetuating the misinformation.
    Thanks.

    Oh, okay, the news article actually gets it right. I don't know where the misinformation came from, but it's still wrong.

    Posted by: tjc | Jan 31, 2007 11:56:20 AM


  5. Stephen,
    it sounds like you are giving pardon to a bunch of ignorants who are just being big babies regarding said g*ddamned ignorance.

    Sorry, anger speaking.

    Ok, so I agree most Americans don't care as much but only because they have no idea. All they hear is mis-information and they see an impending tidal wave of change on what they frankly don't even hold in high regard themselves. Sure, civil unions are fine and dandy and they sure as hell are better than nuthin', but by acquiesing to this legislation, what is that saying about me, my self-regard and self-worth and my needs?

    Posted by: Derrick | Jan 31, 2007 12:21:44 PM


  6. by the way, I've heard it remarked that Hawaii is like the NJ of the west. That being because of it's markedly liberal slant.

    ...not because of a shared over-abundance of pollution, a corrupt state government and a penchant for diners and big hair.

    p.s. I can say that, I'm from NJ. :-)

    Posted by: Derrick | Jan 31, 2007 12:25:26 PM


  7. Stephen,

    Perhaps you can clarify for us. In what way(s) are homosexual relationships 'intrinsically different' than heterosexual relationships?

    I look forward to hearing your answer.

    xo
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | Jan 31, 2007 2:16:26 PM


  8. NO! Please do not encourage Stephen. He has trolled other threads and spewed his nonsense that gay relationships are "intrinsically different" from straight relationships. Do not allow him to pollute another discussion. He has been slapped down repeatedly by me, JT, Zeke, and others yet he persists in his self-loathing ignorance. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

    Posted by: rudy | Jan 31, 2007 2:23:58 PM


  9. PP:
    It's not all that hard to figure out..just think a minute.

    Posted by: Stephen | Jan 31, 2007 3:20:25 PM


  10. I think the right to vote should be taken from women because they are intrinsically different from men biologically, therefore, prone to hormone imbalance, mood swings, irrational thought. Why are we letting women vote? There is a clear biological difference between the brains of a man and a woman.

    They are not the same, therefore they should not be equal.

    Posted by: mark m | Jan 31, 2007 3:31:49 PM


  11. Yay, we're making progress.

    Viva les gays!

    Posted by: Da | Jan 31, 2007 7:06:25 PM


  12. As a gay man that took a long time to come out, got married and had kids, I find Stephen's comments deeply offensive! My current relationship bears the same love, respect and meaning as did my "marriage". To say that my partner means less to me than my former wife is wrong. Since I have been on both sides of this coin I can speak to the two relationships. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT MY CURRENT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT LEGAL! Nothing more, nothing less.

    I am just as committed to him and my life with him as I ever was before. My question to Stephen, besides the whole self loathing thing, is have you ever been married? Zeke nailed me with this one a while back and now it is my turn. Why else would you expect the two relationships to be different. Are you bitter, self hating or just a fool?

    Sorry for feeding the troll Rudy, but he has it coming. I spent far too many years in the closet for the likes of Stephen to discredit my current relationship!!!

    Posted by: RB | Jan 31, 2007 8:54:57 PM


  13. Amen RB my brother! God I LOVE this man! I truly consider RB and Rudy to be kindred spirits.

    I'd like to add one thing to your comment. There is one other difference between your marriage and your current relationship: Your current relationship is based in complete honesty and is a genuine reflection of your true orientation, whereas your relationship with your kids’ mom, as good as it may have been, was not. I think this difference, with no disrespect intended to your kids' wonderful mom (and your best friend), is significant.

    I challenged Stephen in another thread where I asked him a few questions from the point of view of a gay man married to a man and raising a son in a VERY traditional untraditional family. He never responded to my comment. He loves making this "intrinsically different" comment without telling us what these differences are.

    If he wanted to have an informed discussion, I would oblige him; but if he is going to make unsubstantiated statements, straight from the talking points of Focus on the Family, then I won’t waste my time and energy.

    Posted by: Zeke | Feb 1, 2007 12:01:45 AM


  14. Maybe he gets his "intrinsically different" talking point from the Vatican instead of from Colorado Springs.

    After all "intrinsically diffent" is practically identical to "intrinsically disordered".

    Either way I'm not buying it.

    Sorry Rudy, I threw a peanut into the troll exibit. I just can't help myself. They're just so damned cute!

    Posted by: Zeke | Feb 1, 2007 12:07:49 AM


  15. Zeke and RB, I suppose if Stephen insists on playing the Troll then we have to be the three billy goats gruff and batter him under the bridge. Your comments on complete honesty and commitment are directly on point. We are fortunate in that we have found the loves of our lives and are married in all but name. There is no difference between our marriages and those of my straight friends, except perhaps that we, my brothers, each have been married longer. My could-not-be-straighter brother recently made an insightful remark when he noted that it was harder for me to stay married because I did not enjoy explicit and implicit societal support for my relationship as does he. Eventually the laws will reflect the growing majority view that a marriage certificate is nothing more than legal recognition of a human contract between two committed people, regardless of body parts (a la Stephen). Namaste brothers.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 1, 2007 7:19:22 AM


  16. P.s. I think it is my turn to be the hot one but I cannot compete for that role with you two intellectual and physical hotties. Damn! I used to think I was cute when it counted but somebody changed the rules by extending the season. It's tough to be a team player when you cannot remember where you packed the rulebook. Hill? What hill? I don't remember going over any hill.

    Posted by: rudy | Feb 1, 2007 8:50:12 AM


  17. Zeke, I think you're right. Stephen sounds much more like a Catholic troll who comes here merely to stir up trouble. Maybe he's a priest with Internet access and way too much time on his hands (what? He cant find any man-on-man action online? -- Oh, that's right, the archbishop checks the browser history while HE is cruising for dick pics online).

    Posted by: mark m | Feb 1, 2007 9:19:12 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Mexican Gay Man Granted Asylum in The U.S.« «