Quantcast

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
Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Jeff
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.

KJK
The CRM taught us that laws based on subjective discrimination are wrong. We can’t discriminate on sex, race, religion, etc… there must be an objective reason. There is none re SSM. SSM is just the latest area of the CRM.

Pops
Benefits were offered to married couples as an incentive to create stable families and raise their children in that context.

KJK
Then let’s forbid the sterile, the barren, women over 50, those in prison, etc…from marrying and let’s revoke the marriage licenses of all couples who fail to produce a child within 5 years of marriage. If marriage IS about having kids, then let’s make it that way for all and not just roll that excuse out when gays ask for marriage. Ask your wife if she’d go along with that.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

There are a lot of places in Hawaii that would make a great place for a wedding, be it same sex or so called 'traditional'.

postaledith
Freeland, WA

Oh, I love this topic. I am a strong straight ally. First off, I LOVE the comments made by Contrariuserer. Any children raised by a ss couple are very lucky. They get to learn true love and diversity. They will grow up in stable homes with two loving parents. I really hope that Hawaii will be the 15th state where gay marriage will be legal and that the rest of the states will follow. We definitely need more rainbows.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@paintandestroy --

"You can remove religion from the equation and re-write laws but Mother nature will continue to favor a male+female=offspring family equation. "

Many animal species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature.

1. In bonobo chimps, over half of all sexual activity is between females.
2. In giraffes, 90% of all sexual activity is between males.
3. In black swans, 1/4 of all swan pairs are males.
4. In penguins, male penguin couples are sometimes known to mate for life just as straight ones do.

And there are many, many more examples. One researcher has even stated that "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has **not** been shown to exist".

So, it's easy to see that homosexual activity in humans is very much in line with nature. It's easy to find in nature -- therefore it's natural. "Mother Nature" has no problem with homosexual behaviors whatsoever.

And in the meantime, only about 5% of the human population is LGBT. Same-sex marriages will always be a small minority of total human marriages. Human propagation is not in ANY danger from allowing same-sex marriages to occur.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Jeff --

Jeff: "The Supreme Court did not rule on the validity of Prop 8. "

Nope. But regarding DOMA it did explicitly state:

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Jeff: "Did the voters of Hawaii have a referendum...?"

It wasn't a "referendum", Jeff -- it was a constitutional amendment. Waaaay back in 1999.

@Pops --

"Marriage laws were designed to protect children. "

Denying marriage to gay couples doesn't protect children from anything.

Gay couples are already raising children without marriage, and they will continue to do so. Blocking the marriage of their parents only harms the children being raised by those couples.

"...an incentive to create stable families and raise their children in that context."

And gay marriage similarly helps to create stable families for the raising of children by those gay couples.

In what way do gay married people act any differently than any other infertile couples?

"it appears that most gay couples have no interest in children."

In reality, hundreds of thousands of children are already being raised by gay couples.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Pops;

LGBT couples have children too, do they not matter?

@Jeff;

If the government provides benefits then those benefits must be offered to all similarly situated groups, making it a "civil rights" issue.

Lets see if the DN will deny this post as well as my others; they don't seem to like me much.

ConservativeSmasher
Anaheim, CA

"If the government provides benefits then those benefits must be offered to all similarly situated groups, making it a "civil rights" issue."

@Ranch

How is it a civil right to re-define the institution of marriage?

And if re-defining marriage is a civil right for gays and lesbians, then re-defining marriage must also be a civil right for polygamists.

Bob K
porland, OR

Goodness!-- does the DN really need to lower itself by posting an article with that headline?

I watched a few hours of the testimony before the Hawaii Senate committee.

It was very sad to see people who were indoctrinated by local churches to believe ridiculous and petty things about Gay citizens. (none of the people I heard were lds)

The issue of "Would Gay folks be fine if they only just flew to CA and got married?" was shot down for a few reasons:
1-- It is unfair to ask people to go get married in a strange place so Hawaiians can avoid doing the right thing
2-- A number of Federal benefits are seriously in question, when the parties are not legally married in the State of residence.
3-- The idea that ANY American, let alone "Christians" would suggest another group of people has inferior rights to them is hideous.

I am really disappointed that DN picked an article about a minor point in the discussion and used that headline.

I am still waiting for the lds prophet to receive clearer word from God on handling lds people's many thousands of Gay offspring equally to their siblings

Ranch
Here, UT

@ConservativeSmasher;

The "one-man, one-woman" definition is the "re-definition" of marriage. Marriage has never been that in the entire history of mankind. Never. LGBT couples, historically, have been allowed to marry in many ancient societies. Polygamy has historically been practiced (i.e, one man, many women), even by the LDS.

When the government provides benefits to married couples, it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to couples you dislike, for any reason. Polygamists are already allowed to marry the (first) person of their choice, so the polygamy issue is moot since they're already allowed to marry. All we're asking is the right to marry the (first) person of our choice as well, so yes, it is a civil rights issue.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

"Hawaii lawmakers question benefits of same-sex marriage’

I guess all their questions were affirmatively answered because they (Hawaii's senate) unanimously passed it! The vote was 20-4 which kind of exposes the headline as farcical.

Wacoan
Waco, TX

@LeslieDF

In response to Tekakaromatagi, you argue he or she did not substantiate the claim that traditional marriage protects children. If that claim had been substantiated, would you change your support of gay marriage?

Regarding point 2, one does not need to be religious to support a religious exemption just as one does not need to be gay to support gay marriage. It seems to me, that if society's goal was to maximize individual choice and freedom, both gay marriage and a strong exemption should be supported.

Contrariusiest
mid-state, TN

@Bob K --

" does the DN really need to lower itself by posting an article with that headline?"

1aggie --

"The vote was 20-4 which kind of exposes the headline as farcical."

In fairness to the DN, this same article appeared in many other papers with the same headline. It was not something that the DN editors thought up for themselves.

Contrariusiest
mid-state, TN

@ConservativeSmasher --

"And if re-defining marriage is a civil right for gays and lesbians, then re-defining marriage must also be a civil right for polygamists."

Here we go again.

All rights and privileges are limited by the harm principle. In other words, if something that you want to do will significantly increase the risk of harm to another person, then you have no right to do it.

For instance, drunken driving is illegal because it greatly increases the risk of harm to others. A few people may be capable of driving safely while drunk, but over all it is a risky behavior.

Similarly, polygamy significantly increases the risk of harm to women and children. Therefore, the state has a substantial interest in keeping it illegal.

And as the head justice of British Columbia's Supreme Court put it, "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ Ranch:

So if the only issue is equal access to benefits given by the government to traditional marriage, why are civil unions not enough? The solution to the marriage debate is so simple that it may never happen: Government oversees civil unions and gives "marriage" back to religious institutions where it originated and belongs.

It is a valid thing to seek equal treatment by the government. It is not valid to attack, disparage, and sanction any religion in seeking that equal treatment. I have no problem with a gay couple getting tax benefits, etc. I do have a problem when the government tells a photographer that they have to offer their services to gay couples when there are thousands of other photographers the couple can employ.

Religious freedom is a civil right, too. I may not condone the gay lifestyle, but I can show tolerance....

Ranch
Here, UT

@RedWings;

"We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission,
unanimously issue this final report...After eighteen public
meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written
submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the
separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act INVITES AND ENCOURAGES
UNEQUAL TREATMENT of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases,
the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of
same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of
employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for
civil union couples.

...the provisioning of the rights of marriage through the separate
status of civil unions perpetuates the unequal treatment of committed same-sex
couples."

Excerpt from:
Final Report of the New Jersey
Civil Union Review Commission
December 10, 2008

southmtnman
Provo, UT

Pops,

Please close the magical time machine door when you return to your own century...

Same sex couples have children. Same sex couples WANT to have children. Opposite sex couples frequently cannot have children, but their marriages are still legit? Why?

Who do you know that wanted to get married because they were "incentivized" by the law?

("Honey, I am not attracted to you, nor do I love you, and I didn't want to marry, UNTIL I read the law and it just motivated me to get married! Will you marry me?")

Sure, that's what it is all about!

LOL!

my3kids
Laie, HI

Tensions are high here in Hawai'i. People are afraid to go up against SB1 for fear of retaliation. People have deleted facebook accounts because of harassment if they oppose SB1. I would like to ask that all of you in UT that support marriage pray for our Hawai'i state leader that they will make the best decision for us and next generations to come. Pray that their eyes will be opened and see that ssm is not a civil rights issue, but a moral issue. Because the implications of SB1 if passed has the capacity to reach farther than the court house of churches (wherever they would like to marry). This will directly impact our children. What they will read and hear in school, ssm will have to be normalized in every aspect. Please pray for us.

Contrariusesterer
mid-state, TN

@my3kids --

"pray for our Hawai'i state leader that they will make the best decision for us and next generations to come."

Pray that they recognize the will of the people.

"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% margin over those opposed.

"This will directly impact our children. "

Yup. And it will be a wonderful lesson in equal rights for ALL citizens.

my3kids
Laie, HI

All the poles that were taken were in the 18-25 age group. So every pole that was taken is flawed. Also this isn't an issue for us in Hawai'i (the people that are actually from here). It's the transplant homosexuals that come to Hawai'i and make a big stink about 'marriage equality.' Our state now recognizes civil unions, which means they can marry in a state that performs homosexual marriage and come to Hawai'i and enjoy every right as if they were married here. Homosexuals are so loved here in the islands because everyone has a family member or close friend that is a homosexual. We are brought up to love and tolerate them. But we also voted on this in 1998. Our moronic governor decided that the timing was right to push this through, despite what the people already voted on the issue. Just like all those human rights activist that went to American Samoa and told the government that workers now must be paid federal minimum wages, now the tuna factories shut down. Outsiders perspective. So please don't tell us what is right for us. We already voted on the issue.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@my3kids

Do you have ANY evidence, ANY proof, that "All the poles that were taken were in the 18-25 age group. So every pole that was taken is flawed."?

to comment

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