Quantcast
U.S. & World

Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 17, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @This is your life work for it! --

    "nobody spent long hours sitting through the senate hearing nor the house hearing nor the BIll being read the for the 3rd time"

    You are wrong there.

    There's this wonderful thing called "the Internet", you see. And it has this wonderful technology called "streaming video".

    I actually watched nearly all of the last day of debate and voting in the House.

    How about you?

    "Not only did this Bill go against the first amendment"

    How in the world did it do that? 5000 people testified before the Hawaii Senate. Surely that was the 1st Amendment alive and well?

    "the people of Hawaii fight the way that they did."

    "The people" of Hawaii didn't fight it. "The people" of Hawaii support gay marriage by more than 20% over those opposed. The "fight" was engineered by conservative religious special interest groups who wanted their religious views to take precedence over the US Constitution.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    IF right-wing religious prophecies come to fruition, "traditional marriages" in Hawaii will be falling like dominoes. In the real world, life will go on.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Why does this not surprise me?

  • This is your life work for it! Manoa, HI
    Nov. 17, 2013 4:49 a.m.

    So first off nobody that posted here lives in Hawaii, and nobody spent long hours sitting through the senate hearing nor the house hearing nor the BIll being read the for the 3rd time, none of you were there for the 16 hour days, nobody was there to hear all of the reasons why this bill was such a piece of work. Not only did this Bill go against the first amendment, but also the way it was handled was complete junk, ask some of the representatives. This was not just a same gender equality act, there were several other things that were thrown into the bill that made the people of Hawaii fight the way that they did. But as interesting as it has been working so close with the representatives, and seeing the dirt that was in on creating this specific bill, it also corrupted the media. Those outside of being involved, study what was going on in the SB1 you really need to research before you throw digs on religious groups. Its sad seeing people who are so open minded to a certain lifestyle but becomes so closed minded to another.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 16, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    @BobK --

    "1-- move the thread of the discussion...
    2-- degrade the Gay people..."

    And a third reason -- fear mongering, aka "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

    Many researchers have confirmed the multiple deleterious effects of polygamy, in multiple different cultures and religions -- but one guy thinks he knows better than any of them.

    Many courts, both in the US and in other countries, have reaffirmed those dangers and the state's interests in keeping polygamy illegal -- but one guy thinks he knows better than any of them.

    Even the United Nations and its member countries have made multiple official statements against polygamy, and have documented effects of polygamy and worked actively to eliminate it in countries across the globe -- but one guy thinks he knows better than any of them.

    Yet this one guy has never even shown us any evidence to back up his own position. He apparently expects the findings of all these researchers, all these courts, and all those governments to go "poof!" simply because he refuses to believe that any of them have any expertise in the subject.

    Wishful thinking on his part.

  • thebigsamoan Richmond, VA
    Nov. 16, 2013 4:08 a.m.

    The notion that the LDS Church hates gays and lesbians people is so beyond the truth that it's absurd. How many times does the Church have to explain that it doesn't hate the people, it's just that they are opposed to the lifestyle? Marriage is ordained of God and was meant only to be between one man and one woman period! Anything else is in violation of God's law, and that's the crux of the whole matter. The Church is not against same sex couples receiving all the benefits traditional marriage couples get, just against their unions being called marriage because they're not. Redefining marriage to mean anything other than the union of 1 male and 1 female is absurd. I can't even comprehend in my head a union of two men or two women supposedly married and refer to them as two wives or two husbands! It just doesn't sound right because it's not! I have nothing against gay people and their lifestyle. I'm just opposed to their unions being called a marriage. What's wrong with civil union and be entitled to all the benefits of marriage?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 15, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    Very disappointing that some folks like to mix in with Gay equality discussions, the dead horse of polygamy.
    .... Polygamy once had its purposes, but society will not allow it, because it provides the opportunity for abuse of women, girls, and boys. In theory, it could work, but those dangers cannot be overlooked.
    .... There is no danger to anyone if 2 Gay people want to marry.

    I suggest that it only serves the cause of the folks who throw in the polygamy red herring when others respond to them, so I wish you would ignore them. If the poster belongs to the tiny minority that wish polygamy, trying to change him is like telling water to run uphill

    The only possible reason to toss polygamy into a marriage equality discussion are:
    1-- move the thread of the discussion, so that the Gay cause gets sort of lost
    2-- degrade the Gay people as immoral and ungodly

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    How many 'Redshirt' aliases is the Deseret news going to allow?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 15, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "thanks for confrming that you do not have a controlled study that accounts for the confounding effects of violence within the culture. "

    Oh for heaven's sake, Red. You're just talking nonsense now.

    Yet again --

    These controlled studies pair monogamous families with polygamous families ALL IN THE SAME CULTURE. The monogamous families are the "control" group -- they control for the effects of general violence within that culture, because they are all in the very same culture.

    Therefore, if researchers find a difference in violence between the monogamous and polygamous families, they know that the difference in violence is due to marital status -- because the monogamous families have controlled for things like culture, religion, region, and so on.

    What part of "all in the same culture" are you not understanding?

    The monogamous and polygamous families all have the SAME background of cultural violence. That's why the monogamous families DO control for the effects of violence within the culture.

    "You need a control group that is not part of a violent culture so that you can determine if violence within polygamy is due to the culture or not."

    No, you don't.

    Educate yourself, Red.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" thanks for confrming that you do not have a controlled study that accounts for the confounding effects of violence within the culture. You need a control group that is not part of a violent culture so that you can determine if violence within polygamy is due to the culture or not. That is the control. Where is your control. If you have explained it, tell me again what study you have seen that contains a control for violence within the culture.

    Once you understand what a control is in a controlled study and the effects of confounding factors, then you are welcome to respond.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 15, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "you will not have a problem explaining what they used as a control group..."

    Sure. I've already explained this to you multiple times -- but if you need yet another explanation, I'm happy to provide it again.

    These controlled studies pair monogamous families with polygamous families ALL IN THE SAME CULTURE. The monogamous families are the "control" group -- they control for the effects of general violence within that culture, because they are all in the very same culture.

    Therefore, if researchers find a difference in violence between the monogamous and polygamous families, they know that the difference in violence is due to marital status -- because the monogamous families have controlled for things like culture, religion, region, and so on.

    "introduce a group of polygamists from a non-violent culture. "

    No. You STILL are not understanding the concepts of control and scientific methodology.

    " a controlled study must include a group that does not exhibit the trait being studied"

    RIGHT. And the "trait being studied" is POLYGAMY. That's why researchers use a monogamous control group.

    Again -- violence is the RESULT -- the outcome -- of the polygamy "trait". One does NOT control for outcomes.

    I hope this helps!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" if the studies are not biased, then you will not have a problem explaining what they used as a control group to eliminate the possibility of the violence being due to culture. The only way to do that and have it a controlled study would be to introduce a group of polygamists from a non-violent culture. You see a controlled study must include a group that does not exhibit the trait being studied, but thanks to the confounding due to violence within the religion you need to a group that is not violent in nature.

    Can you tell me what group of people were studied that practice polygamy, but do not come from violent cultures?

    Remember, you want a controlled study that also eliminates the confounding caused by culture.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 14, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    @RedShirtMIT --

    "If multiple people all love eachother, why should they be denied the same privelage of being married to the one they love?"

    Yet again -- Because laws are based on the RISK of harm, not the certainty of it. Therefore it is irrelevant if a few scattered folks here and there have benign plural marriages -- we already know where the risk lies. This is the very same principle as drunk driving. We already know that drunk driving conveys a high risk of accidents. It doesn't matter if a few people here and there are able to drive safely while drunk -- we already know where the greatest risk lies.

    "those are biased studies"

    No, hon, they aren't biased. They never have been. And continuing to spout obvious untruths about them will never make them become biased, no matter how much you wish it would.

    You continue to completely misunderstand or ignore very simple principles like the harm principle, the principle of relevancy, and basic concepts of scientific methodology. If you refuse to educate yourself by at least googling such ideas, how else can we help you to understand these simple principles?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    To "J. S." you are stuck in a rut. Lets expand this out more. Imagine a group of 4 gay men or women that want to be married. They all love eachother, and want to be married. You have 4 people involved that are all the same gender. There is no sharing of a single man or single woman.

    Would you deny 4 gay people the opportunity to marry eachother? They love eachother, and want to have the same legal protections that monogamous marriages enjoy. Why would you deny these 4 gay people the opportunity to be happy and enjoy what everybody else can?

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 14, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    "how is it any different for 2 gays or 3 women and 1 man. The only difference is the number of people. They all desire the same thing"

    No they don't. For a married same sex couple, both men EQUALLY have 1 husband, they are equal.

    For 4 women and 1 man, the husband has 4 wives, but each 1 of the 4 wives has to share her husband with 3 other women.
    You can say any of 2 of those 4 women are equal, but I doubt any judge would agree the husband and 1 of the 4 wives are also equal in such an institution. And that will be at least one of the grounds for government to deny polygamy.

    @Contrarius

    Thank you for your post. I hope RedShirtCalTech would finally understand that IT DOESN'T MATTER if a few polygamists here and there can carry out their marriages without harm, as long as many of plural marriages DO convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children, then government DOES have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Nov. 14, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    To "J. S." how is it any different for 2 gays or 3 women and 1 man. The only difference is the number of people. They all desire the same thing, and that is the legal benefits of a government recognized marriage.

    Gays have said that they want to marry the person that they love. If multiple people all love eachother, why should they be denied the same privelage of being married to the one they love?

    To "Contrarius" those are biased studies that lack a control group to determine if the violence is because of polygamy or due to religion. It is well established that within the Muslim and FLDS culture that abuse rates are higher than the general population. Try again once you learn what a controlled study is, and can find a study that includes a control group that is not a part of a violent culture.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 14, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    @JS --

    In support, here's a few relevant brief quotes:

    1. UN Report of the Human Rights Committee 2007-2008 -- polygamy is "a practice which is an affront to women’s dignity and is incompatible with the Covenant" and "highly detrimental to women's rights".

    2. UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- "Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible discrimination against women."

    3. From the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia -- "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."

    4. From the California Supreme Court -- "We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment."

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 14, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    "Why do you want to deny equal protection and equal liberty to those that want the same privelages as the gays have?"

    the problem is that they didn't want "the same privelages as the gays have", they want different privilege. For married heterosexual couples or married same sex couples, the two people are equal within either unions; A husband with 4 wives and a wife who has to share her husband with 3 other women, these two people are simply NOT EQUAL in such an institution. That's the difference.

    If polygamists want the government to recognize their institution, but government point out the above difference and deny their request, the polygamists have to prove otherwise to get the government's recognition. until that day, the government can always deny polygamy, because such an institution is against constitution's equal protection and equal liberty doctrine from the very beginning.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 14, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    " if you actually have a study that controls for polygamy beween people that enter into it out of love..."

    How many times am I going to need to explain to you that the type of study you want is irrelevant to the legalization of polygamy, before you actually understand that the type of study you want is irrelevant to the legalization of polygamy?

    Yet again -- we already know that the vast majority of plural marriages convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children. IT DOESN"T MATTER if a few polygamists here and there can carry out their marriages without harm.

    Laws are based on the RISK of harm, not the certainty of it. Therefore it is irrelevant if a few scattered folks here and there have benign plural marriages -- we already know where the risk lies. This is the very same principle as drunk driving. We already know that drunk driving conveys a high risk of accidents. It doesn't matter if a few people here and there are able to drive safely while drunk -- we already know where the greatest risk lies.

    What part of "irrelevant" is still confusing you?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Nov. 14, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    To "J. S." how is that bad? If the women and the man all want to be married and love and desire that sort of relationship, why deny them? Thanks to the gay marriage movement we have allowed marriage to be redefined as 2 people who love eachother and want to make a commitment to eachother. You now do not offer equal protection and equal liberty to 3 people or more who love eachother and want to make the same commitment to eachother.

    Why do you want to deny equal protection and equal liberty to those that want the same privelages as the gays have?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 14, 2013 2:20 a.m.

    One more thought -- in my view, the DN was not objective, truthful, or loving in using this headline:

    ‘Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill’

    "Marriage Equality" is the correct term, because the issue is about righting a wrong, putting equality where unfairness existed. Mostly the term "gay marriage" is used by opponents who want to make it sound like a special privilege, rather than a right.

    As far as lds people go -- you produce thousands of Gay kids each year. In fact, the only studies that have shown any prediction of Gay births have been in families with more than one son: the more older brothers a baby boy has, the more the likelihood he is Gay goes up.
    (You will have to ask God why, as I am not sure). Therefore, lds people, with larger than average families, will tend to produce extra Gay kids.

    Right now, may I humbly suggest that everyone pray that the prophet asks God to show him soon how you can integrate these kids into the family, the church, and eternity, without treating them as afflicted and less than their siblings.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Nov. 13, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech
    Pasedena, CA

    Please clarify for me:
    1.- I don't see the connection between SSM and polygamy. I don't see why one justify the other.
    2.- Do you spouse polygamy( one man and multiple women) as well as polyandry (one woman and multiple men)?
    3.- or just polygamy?

    I sincerely would appreciate your clarification. In the meantime I will echo the words of Spring Street and "Till that day I will enjoy the long fought victory of the day!"

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    @redshirtcaltech

    "If we are to have equal protection and equal liberty, then why do we allow gays to marry out of love, but not polygamists?"

    Because polygamy is against constitution's equal protection and equal liberty doctrine in the first place; same sex marriage on the other hand, does not.

    A husband with 4 wives and a wife who has to share her husband with 3 other women, these two people are simply not equal in such an institution.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    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.

    .... Really? We are too out of it to understand the culture?
    .... Maybe so, because I understand "Aloha" to mean everyone is welcome and accepted as who he is and the way God made him. The cultural traits you value were perversions of the Aloha spirit by missionaries and churches who wanted to control the culture.

    All one had to do was watch the testimony of those opposed -- almost all of it was repeating scare tactics and lies from churches, after saying "Aloha".
    I did not see any lds testifying -- that would have been unseemly, since lds members were the main force behind blocking equality in the 90s.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    TO "Contrariusier" if you actually have a study that controls for polygamy beween people that enter into it out of love in comparison to people that enter polygamy out of mandate from within their culture that is abusive towards women I would love to see it.

    Please provide verifiable studies that I can look up to see them. If you go back to your standard UN studies, they are all biased because they are in cultures of abuse. All they prove is that when you get a bunch of abused women together, they hate it even more.

    Once you learn what a confounding factor is, and proper use of controlled studies, I will gladly read the studies that you have that can actually provide a control group with women that enter into polygamy out of love. Until then your articles do not prove that it is polygamy that is the cause of abuse. Once you realize that for your studies, islam and FLDS culture is a confounding factor that has not been accounted for, and would be fixed if they would only include a group of polygamists that enter into polygamy out of love and desire.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 13, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    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!!

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 13, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    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.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    @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?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 13, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    @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.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    @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!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Nov. 13, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    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?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Nov. 13, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    It's another sad day in our country.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 13, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    @worf --

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

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

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:51 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:12 p.m.

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

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 10:52 p.m.

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

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 10:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Joggle Somewhere In, HI
    Nov. 12, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Nov. 12, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    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!!

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 12, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    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!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 12, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    Who hoo! Congratulations Hawaii!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    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).

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 12, 2013 4:26 p.m.

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