Talks

September 13th, 2013
By

Gov. Neil Abercrombie met privately on Friday morning with state Senate Democrats to discuss the special session on marriage equality.

The caucus had been scheduled before the governor on Monday announced the Oct. 28 special session. Sources say the scope of a religious exemption in the draft gay marriage bill was among the issues discussed.

Internal vote counts have shown that as many as 20 of the 25 senators support marriage equality.

11 Responses to “Talks”

  1. LoveHawaii:

    If the purpose of the Governor's bill is to achieve "Marriage Equality," he is addressing the wrong issue. Marriage as it exists today applies equally to all people.

    However, married couples are treated unequal and unfairly in federal tax code. Two unmarried people living together are placed in a lower tax bracket when they earn up to $200,00 each for a total of $400,000. Married couples are penalized by the federal tax code. The combined income reduced to only $250,000 ($200,000 for one and $50,000 for the other partner) before the couple is taxed at a higher rate.

    If the Governor wants to implement marriage equality, stop changing the definition of marriage against the will of the people and the intent of the 1998 Hawaii Constitutional amendment. It is time to take a stand for marriage equality in federal tax law.


  2. Auto de Fe:

    "Marriage as it exists today applies equally to all people."

    Wisdom in a sea of political correctness.


  3. Kolea:

    Auto de Fe finds someone as bigoted as he is and sees "wisdom." Go figure.

    Equality would mean everyone has a chance to establish a legally protected stable relationship with the person they love, regardless of their race, color, gender, religion, etc.

    By Auto de Fe's logic, the anti-miscegenation laws provided "equality." After all, everyone had the equal right to marry someone of the same race. So how was it unfair discrimination to prohibit people from marrying someone from another race. And Auto would have found wise people in that era as well. Just by contacting the local Ku Klux Klan or White Citizen's Council.


  4. LoveHawaii:

    The Governor's bill not only redefines marriage, it also redefines "equality."

    Hawaii law requires a person to be 18 years of age to purchase tobacco. The effect of one cigarette could be about 15 minutes. According to Nancy Cook Lauer of West Hawaii Today, next month the Honolulu City Council is scheduled to hear a bill to raise the age to purchase tobacco products to 21.

    Hawaii law requires a person to be 21 to purchase an alcoholic beverage. The effect of the alcohol lasts no more than a couple hours for one beverage.

    However, this "Marriage Equality" bill allows a 15 year old child (with the help of our liberal courts) to decide to enter into an arrangement that is intended to last a life-time. This is the same individual who could stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 years old, because they are a "child".

    If someone isn't mature enough to purchase tobacco or alcohol (and they may not be), they certainly aren't old enough to decide to get married at 15.

    The bill is not about equality and the Governor and its proponents know it.


  5. Kolea:

    LoveHawaii, perhaps you do not write very well. I understand. I get complaints about my writing all the time. But your paragraph which begins with "However..." is very misleading.

    The new bill will not change the age requirement for getting married in Hawaii. The legal age for getting married is 18. 16 and 17 year olds can get married with their parents' consent. In rare cases, 15 year-olds can get married with their parents' consent, plus approval from a judge.

    Since the new law will extend the rights, responsibilities and obligations of current marriage law to committed same sex couples, the age of marriage will not change. It will remain at 18, with 16 and 17 year olds able to marry with their parents' consent. And a 15 year old to marry with both the consent of the parents and with a court agreeing.

    Someone reading your comment might mistakenly believe the law changes the age of eligibility for marriage.

    I am not sure why you call the laws governing the age of marriage "liberal." Perhaps you think there was a golden age of America when the age of consent was higher, but the gosh durn liberals lowered the age? If so, you don't know history. The age of consent at the time of the founding was generally ten years old. In the late 19th century, the age of consent in most American states was 12. It was not until the early 20th century in the US that the age of consent was raised to 16 in most states. This was true in states run by conservatives and by liberals.

    Your Golden Age of Conservative America where the virtue of young women was protected by the law never really existed, except in your imagination.

    The new law, which represents the expansion of equality to include both opposite and same sex couples, follows the same legal requirements as existing law. Not younger. Not older. If you want to raise the age of consent in Hawaii, feel free to lobby for it. But that is a separate issue from marriage equality.


  6. Goober:

    "Wisdom in a sea of political correctness." Molasses.

    Yet molasses if mixed right can be used to decontaminate
    Nuclear Waste Water.


  7. Especially Incognito:

    Again rape will become legal to any age.
    Therefore the need for President ObamaCare's need for contraception.
    To prevent from being sodomized against their will. Preventing
    from getting pregnant and not needing an abortion.

    Equality is a Civil War that never ended. Anything Civil
    comes to War. Sarin gas shows equality that all die.
    Senator lindsey graham is still in his closet, rumored to be gay.
    Yet, he conserves his "rats".


  8. LoveHawaii:

    Kolea, thanks for letting me know that I needed to clarify my comments. That is the only way we can reach common understanding. I appreciate your input.

    My comments regarding the lack of equality had nothing to do with sexual preferences. It was comparing the "equality" of how our laws apply to children. Most laws recognize an individual must be 21 to make a mature decision. Yet, as you mentioned, our marriage laws enable adolescents to commit to a life long relationship. Since Hawaii law sets 21 as the age for making adult decisions, it would make sense to raise the age for marriage to 21 for everyone.

    However, since you brought up the sexual orientation perspective, it is clear that the committed relationships of gays/lesbians and heterosexual couples are not equal in any respect.

    To review pertinent statistics, you can look at articles from either Family Research Council,

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 or

    Examiner.com

    http://www.examiner.com/article/same-sex-marriage-alert-shocking-statistics-on-gay-and-lesbian-infidelity

    It is clear that homosexual relationships do no abide in the marriage commitment of fidelity and differ from heterosexual married relationships in duration, health risks, partner violence, and ability to have biologically related children.

    If you study the facts, you have to admit the relationships and commitment are not equal. The facts make the terminology "Marriage Equality" a farce.

    Those in the homosexual community or former members admit that the goal is to change marriage not commit to the vow of faithfulness for life. According to the Family Research Council article provided above, the following admission, in their own words -- not mine, can be found:

    "A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE
    By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:
    Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]
    Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:
    For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
    The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]
    Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:
    In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]
    The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian "committed" relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for "gay marriage" lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage."


  9. Guy:

    Isn't "Gov. Neil Abercrombie met privately on Friday morning with state Senate Democrats" misleading? It was a caucus. A caucus is called by members of the Senate or House. The governor is invited. Technical, yes, but misleading ... yes.


  10. ohiaforest3400:

    I loved the Young Republicans op-ed yesterday about not having had the chance to weigh in on same sex marriage in 1998. Good point. I wasn't around when they were debating the teaching of evolution in the public schools, either. I think we should start that discussion over again, too. Today's youngsters won't need to reargue the fact, cause, and effect of global warming. They'll be breathing it, swimming in it, living it. And wondering why we were dickering around with this (comparative) foolishness while Rome was burning.


  11. Especially Incognito:

    It's grammar came on the Mayflower.
    American is a revolutionized dialect of English.

    Right well? Coming from the left, you oped wrong.
    Entered the right ear and out the left. Nothing
    in between to block what was heard. senator graham
    oped that he is not gay. UM? senator graham is contrary.
    He says conservative but thinks, what am I?


Leave a Reply