Political Radar


September 7th, 2013

Religious conservatives are sending increasingly dire warnings about the threat of gay marriage as Gov. Neil Abercrombie gets closer to making a decision on a special session.

The Hawaii Republican Assembly's Tito Montes on Saturday issued another caution about the "radical agenda of homosexuals, bisexuals and polygamists."

Garret Hashimoto of the Hawaii Christian Coalition went even further, invoking the history of Adolph Hitler in Germany in a message to Christians.

It is clearly a time for Action and all who believe in Father God MUST get involved. We cannot legalize Same-Sex Marriage, then have it taught in our public schools. Then our Churches are next, regardless of exemptions in the bill. Churches and Pastors and ALL Christians will get sued for discrimination that will be legalized through Same-Sex Marriage.

History tells us that Germany was a strong Christian nation through Martin Luther. Then came Adolph Hitler who started to indoctrinate children and youth until he became Germany's ruler. We all(or should)know what happened next. Christians let us put all our efforts to stop this "unjust" law.

10 Responses to “Apocalyptic”

  1. Eric4Senate:


  2. Kolea:

    I am neither a homosexual, bisexual or polygamist. (Not a bestialityist, in case some conservatives think I am trying to sneak by without that disclaimer.)

    There is nothing "radical" about extending a conservative legal institution to same sex couples. Gays and lesbians wanting to get married are seeking to "conserve" their relationships using the same laws which have conserved families headed by opposite sex couples. Indeed, the real "radicals" in the gay community thing monogamous marriage is an institution which deadens love and sexuality and turns that love into a property relationship. (Heck, some of us heterosexuals can understand THAT criticism).

    I am going to miss the over-the-top hellfire and damnation rhetoric of the Christian fundamentalists, so eager to protect their shaky marriages by denying others the right to make the same mistake. I suggest Garret and Tito abandon the Republican Party. They clearly are not appreciated enough by the Republican Party officers, nor by the GOP elected officials. Form a third party which openly seeks Christian "dominion" over the rest of us. Let's see how far you can get once you are forced to rally voters to your narrow vision. Let's see how many Christian Dominionists you can get elected.

  3. Goober:

    Again, rumored that senator graham is gay. he denies it
    but proof is in his physical examinations.

    "Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems."

    "Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems."

    Some liberals think conservative and conservatives think liberal.
    They make up the meaning of each word to their liking.
    DINO versus RINO. Too bad neither can think straight but only left
    and right.

  4. Juliet Begley:

    Let us not forget New Hope's leaders.....and Transformation Hawaii, Wayne Cordeiro has been spouting some really vile stuff and posting it on FaceBook. His uber focus on gays really makes me wonder what happened to him in his life, sounds way too personal some of his musings on the gay life.

    I agree with Kolea --- let them start a new political party, Christian Dominionism isn't looking for a big tent political philosophy - they just want to let you know 'you're going to hell'.....

  5. LoveHawaii:

    Kolea's comment on Sept 7 at 7:47 pm shows explicitly why the word marriage should not be misused and contorted.

    The statement: "Gays and lesbians wanting to get married are seeking to "conserve" their relationships using the same laws which have conserved families headed by opposite sex couples."

    The answer is -- they do -- it is called Civil Union. Everyone can use this law. Most of the testifiers as the Civil Union hearings assured the public that they didn't want marriage. Did they lie?

    The telling part is that the comment specifies "gays" and "lesbians" as distinct from other men and women. Since this self-designation requires unique terminology, so too should their coupling relationship.

    Words provide clarity. There are hundreds of thousands of words in the dictionary. Some have close but distinct nuances. Marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman should not be confused with new and varied meanings.

    Each new configuration can be given their own well defined expression of their relationship -- just as "gay" and "lesbian" has provided clarity.

    It is incomprehensible that individuals who have "pride" in their uniqueness now want to lose that separate identity.

  6. Eric Ryan:

    Typical. If conservatives oppose a policy, they are branded 'apocalyptic' and radicals lauded as visionary. With liberal advocacy journalism like this, it's no wonder that newspapers such as the Star-Advertiser are in decline.

  7. Esther:

    It is not equality that gay activists want. It is the destruction of marriage. Out of her own mouth gay activist Masha Gessen: "Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we're going to do with marriage when we get there...because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again I don't think it should exist." Read Michael Lee's letter to the editor that appeared in the Star Advertiser this morning. He did not make that quote up.

  8. Lois:

    To change marriage recognizing anything other than between a man and a woman is a breach of trust and responsibilities by the politicians. Under Cayotano , 76% of voters stated in an amendment that marriage was to be defined between one man and one woman.
    The passing of same-sex unions was to appease political correctness of giving legal recognition of a union between homosexuals. After that was passed, leaders in the homosexual movement said they would not be satisfied until marriage was dissolved. They was at least honest to state the obvious.
    Refining marriage to include homosexuality opens the door for endless lawsuits, as we have seen on the mainland, and the fake words saying it won't is a farce, and the politicians know it.
    This is not a win/win for the state, for the churches, or for the people.
    Let it rest.

  9. Especially Incognito:

    Who is considered a Civil Authority?

  10. Goober:

    Maybe a gay person came from the rib of a woman.
    It would be eve and eve on the eve of eve.

Leave a Reply

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.