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.
@my3kidsDo 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
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.
@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.
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.
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!
@RedWings;"We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil
Union Review Commission,unanimously issue this final report...After
eighteen publicmeetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages
of writtensubmission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds
that theseparate categorization established by the Civil Union Act INVITES
AND ENCOURAGESUNEQUAL 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 ofsame-sex couples and their children is
striking, largely because a number ofemployers and hospitals do not
recognize the rights and benefits of marriage forcivil union couples....the provisioning of the rights of marriage through the separatestatus of civil unions perpetuates the unequal treatment of committed
same-sexcouples."Excerpt from: Final Report of the
New JerseyCivil Union Review CommissionDecember 10, 2008
@ 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....
@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."
@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
@LeslieDFIn 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.
"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.
@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
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 thing2--
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
"If the government provides benefits then those benefits must be offered to
all similarly situated groups, making it a "civil rights" issue."@RanchHow 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
@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.
@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.
@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
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.
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'.
JeffI 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.KJKThe 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.PopsBenefits were offered to married couples as an incentive to create stable
families and raise their children in that context. KJKThen
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.
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.
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.
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.
JeffBy 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).KJKCivil 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.JeffFurther, I think it is disingenuous to suggest
that the lawyers who argued in favor of Prop 8 failed to make good arguments.
KJKThen 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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
LaneTekakaromatagi, ...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.KJKOpponents 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."KJKWithout 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.
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.
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
@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.
@RedNot 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.
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?
TekakaromatagiNow 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.
"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.
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