Quantcast
U.S. & World

Hawaii lawmakers question benefits of same-sex marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 3, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    The Civil Beat's own website says: "The Civil Beat Poll shows that the younger the voter the greater support for civil unions and gay marriage. Gay marriage had the support of 67 percent of voters under 30, 58 percent of those ages 30 to 39 and 59 percent of those ages 40 to 49. Over 50 and support dropped to about 35 percent."

    I didn't find an age breakdown for the QMark poll, but both polls appear to be statewide telephone polls of registered voters in general -- not selected by age.

    At least two newspapers -- the Star-Advertiser and the Maui News -- have also both officially endorsed gay marriage.

    @my3kids:

    "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."

    Sorry, no. Civil unions are never equal to marriage.

    "We are brought up to love and tolerate them. "

    If you were sincere in your claim of "love", you would not be using the word "tolerate".

    "We already voted on the issue."

    Yup. 15 years ago. Fortunately, public opinions do evolve over the course of 15 years.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 2, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    @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."?

  • my3kids Laie, HI
    Nov. 2, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrariusesterer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 2, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @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
    Nov. 2, 2013 5:17 a.m.

    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.

  • southmtnman Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    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!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 31, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @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

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Oct. 31, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    @ 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....

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    @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."

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Oct. 31, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    @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.

  • Wacoan Waco, TX
    Oct. 31, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    @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.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 31, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    "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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 31, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    @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.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Oct. 30, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    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

  • ConservativeSmasher Anaheim, CA
    Oct. 30, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    "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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 30, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Oct. 30, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 30, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    @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.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Oct. 30, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 11:58 p.m.

    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'.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 29, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    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.

  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 29, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    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?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Oct. 29, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    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.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Oct. 29, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    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.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    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
    Oct. 29, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    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?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    @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.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @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.

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    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?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    "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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    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.