Quantcast

Comments about ‘Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 12 2013 4:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I joined this fight twenty years ago it is so amazing the progress that has been made, a great day for human rights.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Aloha!

Get ready Utah, it's coming and you're all going to have to get gay-married (not really, but that's what your religious leaders would have you believe).

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

Who hoo! Congratulations Hawaii!

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

I can't believe it took so long -- and was so difficult -- for Hawaii to finally pass this. But at least they finally got it done. A huge congrats to you, and also a big "told ya so!" to those folks who have been saying that Hawaii would never do it!

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

The passing of this bill is significant to all of us that one way or another are connected to the LDS church. As an LGBT man I remember the hope that was open to me and millions of others when Hawaii considered SSM for the first time. It was devastating to see our church opposing not only doctrinally but economically the concept that we, LGBT, could also have a shot to love and happiness.
California and Prop 8 followed.
I love the LDS church and as Senator Reid said, many members of the church are becoming more and more tolerant and accepting of SSM.
It makes me sad to see that my church is not able to accept me and other children of devoted LDS families as full members of the body of Christ. Hawaii and California represent defeats to the LDS backed campaigned against SSM. Yet, the major defeat in my opinion is self inflicted by the blindness to accept all children of God as Children of God.
I believe in revelation and I pray that change will soon come.
Congratulations Hawaii!!

Joggle
Somewhere In, HI

Marriage equality wins in Hawaii! Hooray! Tyranny of the majority are decisions made by a majority placing its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression. Hawaii did what was fair and equal rather than leave the decision up to the people who seek to oppress and discriminate due to unsupportable and wrong reasons.

Uncle Rico
Sandy, UT

This is sad to see. Hawaiians dealing with the influx of liberals and their ideas starting with the Berkley "Mushroom" children in the 60's. Hawaii has always attracted the liberals and the liberal agenda. Sad to see a culture built on Aloha turn into this.

Unless you are from there, you have no idea of the culture there.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Good for them. I'm sure it will be the wedding and honeymoon business, as well.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Ya hoo! Ma-Whoooo!--Gay marriage is progress!?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

In 1996, the LDS church targeted Hawaii against civil unions. I was 16 years old, in another state and targeted because of the beliefs of some, I was told that I was going to hell for being gay.

Fast forward to 2013, Prop 8, DOMA, have failed billions of dollars, wasted, and Hawaii will now legalize gay marriage. For those LDS who support marriage, I thank you. It is a Christian thing to do.

For those who do not? They are the reason I moved to Utah, and became an activist. Because targeting others, instead of making the world better, is not a Christian thing to do.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@worf --

"Ya hoo! Ma-Whoooo!--Gay marriage is progress!?"

Yup. Recognizing equal rights for all citizens is a Good Thing. :-)

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

It's another sad day in our country.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Gay marriage is progress!?

I'm sorry worf, should we deny marriage to people we don't like?

I know my LDS friends remember the sting of persecution. Would it suddenly hit home if I said…

'Mormon marriage is Progress!?'

Suddenly, some might take offense.

But 'not' when you say 'gay marriage'.

The double-standard marches on apparently.

So too, thankfully, does progress.

With, or without the small minded.

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

Ok liberals, how does this create marriage equality? Now that you have re-defined marriage to being between people who love eachother, what are you going to do for the polygamists? They can't help the fact that multiple women are attracted to the same man, and that they are all ok with that. Are you going to continue to deny them the same equality just because it is multiple people?

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@redshirtca;tech
I think if a polygamist wants to have government recognition of their marriage then they have the right to make that demand and those that appose it need to be able to show a compelling state and social interest in not allowing it if they want it banned , something they were unable to do with gay marriage. Tell that day I will enjoy the long fought victory of the day!

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@RedShirtCalTech --

"Now that you have re-defined marriage to being between people who love eachother, what are you going to do for the polygamists? "

Here we go again.

TWO facts are necessary in order to justify the legalization of gay marriage:

1. Marriage is a civil right;

AND

2. Gay marriage in particular does not cause a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

Now, marriage in general clearly IS a civil right as established by the US Constitution and reaffirmed by multiple SCOTUS decisions.

AND nobody has ever been able to show that gay marriage causes a significantly increased risk of harm to anyone.

In stark contrast, polygamy is very well known to convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children in particular.

Therefore, polygamy fails to qualify under the harm principle.

Polygamy conveys a significantly increased risk of harm. Therefore our government has an interest in continuing to ban it.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@redshirtcaltech

If one man has four wives in polygamy, then the husband, which has four wives, and one of the four wives, who has to "share" a husband with other three wives, or only has 1/4 husband, and for some reason, you think these two people are equal? 1/4 = 4? how? How can such arrangement not be against constitution? You do know that we live in America, where equal protection and equal liberty are guaranteed by constitution, right?

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

To "J. S." since love is not a commodity nor is it a tangible item that can be split, your argument means nothing.

You have a man who equally loves 4 women, and those women equally love him. They all want to enter this sort of relationship willingly. Those 5 people are not equally protected under the law like the gays and monogomous marriages are. Now, the man's second, third, and fourth wives do not have the same protection under the law that his first wife legally enjoys.

If we are to have equal protection and equal liberty, then why do we allow gays to marry out of love, but not polygamists?
To "Contrariusier" once you have a valid study that contains a group where polygamy based on love and not on religious mandates, I will discuss this with you. The studies that you like do not contain that control, and have not dealt with the confounding factor of a relationship based on love and not an arranged marriage. I am getting tired of proving you wrong and dealing with your distractions of what makes a good study and what makes for a biased study.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@RedShirtCalTech --

"You have a man who equally loves 4 women..."

Again -- we don't create laws based on the certainty of harm -- we created them on the RISK of harm.

It may indeed be true that a few lucky men may be able to create benign plural marriages. However, we already know that the vast majority of plural marriages are NOT benign, and in fact convey a greatly increased risk to women and children. Laws are based on that greatly increased overall risk, not on the tiny exceptions to the rule.

"once you have a valid study that contains a group where polygamy based on love and not on religious mandates, I will discuss this with you."

LOL!!

I've got tons of valid studies, Red. You don't like them because they prove that you're wrong, but that doesn't make them invalid.

If you want to see studies of polygamy "based on love", you get to find em.

"have not dealt with the confounding factor of a relationship based on love and not an arranged marriage."

That isn't a confounding factor, Red. Haven't you looked up those terms YET?? Cmon, Red. Google is your friend.

Bob K
porland, OR

LDS people -- suppose this was your child or brother...

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA
The passing of this bill is significant to all of us that one way or another are connected to the LDS church. As an LGBT man I remember the hope that was open to me and millions of others when Hawaii considered SSM for the first time. It was devastating to see our church opposing not only doctrinally but economically the concept that we, LGBT, could also have a shot to love and happiness.
California and Prop 8 followed.
I love the LDS church and as Senator Reid said, many members of the church are becoming more and more tolerant and accepting of SSM.
It makes me sad to see that my church is not able to accept me and other children of devoted LDS families as full members of the body of Christ. Hawaii and California represent defeats to the LDS backed campaigned against SSM. Yet, the major defeat in my opinion is self inflicted by the blindness to accept all children of God as Children of God.
I believe in revelation and I pray that change will soon come.
Congratulations Hawaii!!

to comment

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