Comments about ‘Hawaii lawmakers question benefits of same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

1) "Opponents say society needs to encourage marriage between men and women, in part to protect children."
2) "They also say a religious exemption proposed in the bill doesn't do enough to protect people who don't believe in gay marriage from having to facilitate ceremonies."

Wow! Cool! The opponents have reasons other than religious reasons (e.g. Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve, etc). I am always reading supporters of same-gender marriage who say that they only see religious arguments for marriage.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

"A January 2013 Honolulu Civil Beat poll found that 55% of Hawaii voters were in favor of same sex marriage, while 37% were opposed."

"An August 2013 QMark Research poll found that 54% of Hawaii residents were in favor of same-sex marriage, while 31% were against."

The people of Hawaii favor same-sex marriage by a 20-point margin over those opposed.

Hawaii's state Supreme Court declared **twenty years ago** that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex marriages. In 1993, in the case Baehr v. Miike, the court ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex in violation of the right to equal protection guaranteed by the state's constitution.

The people of Hawaii want same-sex marriage. The highest court in Hawaii supports same-sex marriage. The governor of Hawaii wants same-sex marriage. The Hawaii State Senate wants same-sex marriage.

It's coming, folks. Get used to the idea.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Tekakaromatagi

Now that you stated your number 1 opposition to ssm, you MUST back it up with facts. Prove (in a court of law) that ssm harms children. Especially those children already being raised by same sex couples. Prove that only allowing a man and a woman to marry protects children.

Just stating what you want to use as an example does not prove it to be true. That is where your argument falls apart. No one has been able to prove this in a court of law.

Red
San Antonia, TX

Lane,

Since the Family is at the center of the gospel if you appose it then you are against the gospel.

Anti family means anti Christ.

Doesn't sound like the right side to be on. does it?

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

@Red

Not everyone believes that your "gospel" is true. We live in a secular country, not a theocracy, where all should have the same opportunity to marry the one they love.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Lane Meyer:

Let me clarify my point. I am not arguing that the likelihood that a particular child raised by two parents of the same gender will be better or worse off than another child raised by their biological parents. What I am addressing is that the percentage of children born to single mothers is increasing because society's view of the importance of marriage as an environment for raising children has diminished. In order to fight poverty that trend needs to be reversed.

Diluting the importance of marriage by calling anything and everything 'a marriage' will reduce the importance of the institution.

Consider the following: if anyone and everyone can get a military medal, it dimnishes the status of those who have really met the requirements to have received a medal.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Red,

Why can't we support ALL families? Why not support grandchildren that are being raising by their grandparents? Why not support the single mothers that are working two jobs because their husbands are not in the picture (for whatever reason.) Why not support the children being raised by a gay couple?

Families do not come in one size. They are varied and with many different components. I am for ALL families. I support and will vote to support legislation that gives all children in all sorts of families the most stable environment we can offer.

That is reality. We can help children best by supporting them in whatever situation they are in. Marriage is a stabilizing influence on a home.

You accuse me of being anti-family. I am not. You seem to be anti-any kind of family but the traditional father-mother. That is not reality. Why can't you support ALL families?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

TEK: "Diluting the importance of marriage by calling anything and everything 'a marriage' will reduce the importance of the institution."

-------------

When murderers, child molesters, and any drunk couple in Los Vegas can get married, don't you think the importantce of "marriage" is already deluted? Your own marriage will not be affected by Britany Speers' 72 hour marriage UNLESS you allow it to. Neither will a same-sex marriage affect anyone elses marriage - unless you let it. Marriage has been on the wane for decades - long before the fight for gay marriage started.

If you are concerned about the small percentage of US citizens who might have a SSM and how it will change your idea of what marriage means, why not be concerned about what heterosexuals have done to the institution? Why not make divorce something that cannot be obtained easily? Why not pass laws to make every couple go to counseling before they marry? Why not work to improve what you can to support your idea of marriage?

Marriage is not earned like a military medal. It is a privilege that any single, adult, US citizen may undertake. Yes, even mass murderers-Ted Bundy was married in prison.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Lane
Tekakaromatagi, ...Prove (in a court of law) that ssm harms children. Especially those children already being raised by same sex couples. Prove that only allowing a man and a woman to marry protects children.

KJK
Opponents can't. The prop.8 trial proved that. They offered no evidence and got the testimonies of those who did testify sealed so that the public can't hear their laughable assertions.

Red
"Lane,Since the Family is at the center of the gospel if you appose it then you are against the gospel. Anti family means anti Christ."

KJK
Without SSM, both parents are forced to work to provide insurance. This forces kids into daycare vs. having a stay-at-home parent. Without marriage, the couple has fewer rights and protections. The same goes for the kids. These all harm the family and the kids. You're right...being anti-family IS anti-Christ. This family may not be ideal, but it’s still a family and supporting things that harm them is contrary to the gospel.

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

Tekakaromatagi, you argue: 1) protect children, and 2) religious exemption doesn't do enough. "The opponents have reasons other than religious reasons." (!?)

Your "reason" 1) is not substantiated. You later say: "Diluting the importance of marriage by calling anything and everything 'a marriage' will reduce the importance of the institution" and "society's view of the importance of marriage as an environment for raising children has diminished"

So make single moms marry the men who father their children. Ban infertile and elderly couples from marriage. Outlaw divorce. You fail to show any association of any of these with same-sex couples getting married as the cause or effect. Remember, same-sex couples do not have shotgun weddings.

Your "reason" 2) IS religious. And the law in the Hawaiian legislature now includes the only exemptions that are needed.

S572-E Refusal to solemnize a marriage - not possible, and no liability.
5572-F Religious organizations and facilities performing marriages; no liability and total exemption.

You show no understanding of society's problems and no knowledge of what is the proposed law.

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

Freedom of religion, does that apply to gay people or only to Christians or Mormons? What about religious freedom for gay people, or does that ever cross the minds of anyone? Does a Mormon have the right to walk on my beliefs just because his or her belief defines me as something evil? I believe in a God who would allow me to marry the same as any Mormon! So, is it alright for Mormons and others to force me to live the way they see fit. Do we not live in a country where all should be treated equal and why is it so hard for people to allow us to live our lives to best of our abilities and according to our own beliefs, because we are certainly better than the way in which we get treated! It amazes me how arrogant so many people are, assuming that their belief is the only way and discounting others as if they were trash! We know who we are and we certainly don't have to accept the derogatory ideas about us that are given by Mormons or any other group!

LeslieDF
Alameda, CA

Tek: "if anyone and everyone can get a military medal, it diminishes the status of those who have really met the requirements to have received a medal."

People do not perform heroic acts in order to get a medal.

And couples do not marry to get "status" or "recognition" or a medal from anyone. If they do, they marry for all the wrong reasons.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Contrariuserer, "A January 2013 Honolulu Civil Beat poll found that 55% of Hawaii voters were in favor of same sex marriage, while 37% were opposed.

True,the times are changing. The Defense Department announced its intention to extended health, housing and other benefits to same-sex spouses of uniformed military personnel and defense civilian employees. The military said it would make spousal and family benefits available no later than September 3, "regardless of sexual orientation" so long as a valid marriage certificate is provided.

As early as April 1978, the U.S. Army had circulated A Handbook for Chaplains "to facilitate the provision of religious activities." Both the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set were listed among the "other" religions to be tolerated inside the U.S. military. See Anton Levey.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

Polls regularly suggest that people's attitudes have shifted in favor of same-gender marriage. However, twice in California polls suggested that a majority of voters would support same-gender marriage, and twice voters rejected it (once with Prop 22, and again with a Constitutional Amendment in Prop 8).

Pollsters have been baffled by this, but one suggested reason makes good sense: gay lobbyists and activists have bullied people to the point that they are afraid to express their personal opposition to same-gender marriage, so they lie about it in the opinion polls, but demonstrate their true feelings in elections.

By all means, put the so-called changing norms to a public vote, then support that vote. (In California, the votes of only two judges overturned millions of the people who confounded pollsters).

Further, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the lawyers who argued in favor of Prop 8 failed to make good arguments. Though they convinced some judges, others (notably at least one who was already biased for the opposition) simply refused to accept what should have been obvious.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Jeff,

Go read the transcript of the Prop 8 trial. If you think there was anything put forth by the defense in support of denying gays to marry, please show it. It was a circus, with the main witness for Prop 8 agreeing with the lawyers against it that it was discriminatory and that gays should be allowed to marry.

No one who had any academic standing would testify against gay marriage. There was not one fact showing harm placed in front of the judge. What a poor excuse for a defense. They would make a statement and the other side would prove it false. They had no proof that could stand up besides their beliefs, and we cannot legislate or make judgments on just the beliefs of peopls. We demand proof, right?

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@Jeff --

"By all means, put the so-called changing norms to a public vote, then support that vote."

The voters already gave the Hawaii LEGISLATURE the power to decide issues of marriage definition, back in 1999.

The voters made that rule -- now they get to live with it.

"I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the lawyers who argued in favor of Prop 8 failed to make good arguments. "

It is not disingenuous, it is factual.

If they had been able to prove that the state had a substantial interest in denying gays the right to marry, then DOMA would not have been overturned and Prop 8 would currently be the law in California. But they failed to do so, and several judges -- including the SCOTUS justices -- have recognized their failure.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Jeff
By all means, put the so-called changing norms to a public vote, then support that vote. (In California, the votes of only two judges overturned millions of the people who confounded pollsters).
KJK
Civil rights aren’t based on popularity. 22 was overturned by the CSSC and then Prop 8 was overturned by a federal judge and then a 3 judge panel. Even the LDS judge, who went to BYU Law School, on the 3 judge panel “who was already biased for the [supporters]” only gave token opposition to overturning Prop 8. He strained to object on a minor point. I’ve read all of the decisions.

Jeff
Further, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the lawyers who argued in favor of Prop 8 failed to make good arguments.
KJK
Then why did the pro-8 lawyers sue to seal the testimony the witnesses? The pro-8 side only brought up a few points to save 8 in front of the 3 judge panel. As stated, even the devout LDS judge couldn’t agree with them all and gave weak support for only one point.

paintandestroy
Richmond/Cache, UT

You can remove religion from the equation and re-write laws but Mother nature will continue to favor a male+female=offspring family equation. It's fundamental biology- not an uneducated, bigoted trend.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

Lane Meyer: I've read the transcript, thank you. I clearly disagree with you on the defense that was put on and the arguments in favor of same-gender marriage. I do not think Prop 8 was overturned because the opposition put on a brilliant case and the defense was stupid.

This illustrates a problem with interpreting the Prop 8 narrative. The fact that Prop 8 was overturned has very little to do with arguments and very much to do with personal bias of judges and legal technicalities.

Contrarius: The Supreme Court did not rule on the validity of Prop 8. Besides, you're making an either/or fallacy.

Did the voters of Hawaii have a referendum in which they directly gave the legislature carte blanche to vote on same-gender marriage? I don't remember that referendum.

Kevin J. Kirkham: I agree with you that civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote. I disagree with you that same-gender marriage is such a civil right. I think it makes a mockery of the Civil Rights Movement to equate same-gender marriage with civil rights.

The witnesses needed protection from harassment--see my original point.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Marriage laws were designed to protect children. Benefits were offered to married couples as an incentive to create stable families and raise their children in that context. Why would the state care? Because that's where the next generation of citizens comes from. Society is better off if there are children at all, and if they are not dead, malnourished, uneducated, or lacking in character. Gay "marriage" inverts the marriage proposition and makes it about the couple rather than about the children - that's understandable, in a way, because gay couples don't naturally produce children, and it appears that most gay couples have no interest in children. So by inverting the marriage proposition, gay "marriage" proponents do great harm to society as they get their way, because the state will have lost a powerful tool for incentivizing people to have children and raise them responsibly. Every child deserves to be raised by its biological parents, and to be taught appropriate gender roles that create the synergy of marriage.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments