Political Radar


October 28th, 2013

The state Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee on Monday waded through testimony on gay marriage from hundreds of supporters and opponents at a public hearing at the state Capitol auditorium.

Sen. Clayton Hee, the committee's chairman, said 1,800 people had signed up to testify. He told reporters that the committee would make a decision on whether to advance the bill as soon as reasonable.

The state House, which is waiting on the Senate to take action, has  set a hearing date on the Senate bill.

The House Judiciary Committee and the House Finance Committee will hear the bill at 10 a.m. Thursday in the state Capitol auditorium, provided that the Senate approves the bill and sends it to the House by that time.

10 Responses to “Date”

  1. Especially Incognito:

    Estimated 1.392 million (2012) population of Hawaii.
    @1,800 is a small amount of testifiers.

    One thing not mentioned is that,
    "I cannot go to New York and buy a lottery ticket."
    I should be able to go to New York and buy a lottery ticket.

  2. Eric Ryan:

    The funniest hypocrisy on display are the pro-SSM activists who attack the proposition that a majority of voters should be able to decide this issue ("It's a right, it shouldn't be voted on, blah blah blah."). Yet, here they are pushing for a majority of politicians to be able to decide this supposed right. I guess it's okay if the politicians are doing you bidding to 'vote on a right', especially if the people might vote the other way. Let the celebrating begin. It's only a law, not etched in stone.

  3. ohiaforest3400:

    Well, you may see it as hypocrisy but another way to look at is that the anti-SSM folks got the constitution amended in 1998 to permit the legislature to define marriage in a way that otherwise would violate equal protection (per the HSC in Baehr). They did so at the time and now they appear headed toward changing their mind and deciding to no longer exercise that authority and, instead, to define it as the HSC said equal protection requires.

    So, yeah, the pro-SSM advocates are asking the legislature to do what the voters gave them the authority to do. If you see that as hypocrisy, well, I'm sure no one here is surprised by that. And even fewer would agree, if that's even possible.

  4. Eric Ryan:

    All that happened in 1998, "ohia" (actually Ms. Jones or Mr. Smith), was that the Democrats in the legislature used their power to prevent a truly anti-SSM constitutional amendment from getting on the ballot in '98 and then social conservative leaders went forward with a campaign of persuasion to get more than 2-to-1 majority of voters to adopt that worthless constitutional amendment . . . selling the amendment as if it had the teeth of blocking SSM permanently. Then, these same anti-SSM 'leaders' dropped the ball for the past 15 years by forgetting to do the work necessary to maintain a political climate in which a legislative majority would never consider redefining marriage, rather than rushing towards it gleefully. LGBTers could overplay their hand in the months and years ahead by filing lawsuits, flaunting their alternate gender identities in the workplace, pushing the DOE to implement pro-LGBT curriculum, etc. So it's important to remember that the state constitution gives the legislature the option of changing its mind. But nothing you wrote makes it any less funny to see people complaining about the idea of letting a majority decide their rights at the ballot box while celebrating the idea of letting a majority decide their rights at the state capitol . . . even if you are the self-appointed President of the DePledge Commenters with your "no one here is surprised" and "even fewer would agree" snarks.

  5. ohiaforest3400:

    I am not, and do not claim to be, the president of anything. And it's plain for anyone to see, if they choose to look, that you are the lone voice of your "view" here. "No one is surprised" and "even fewer would agree" are not snarks, they are demonstrable facts, at least thus far in the "conversation." In any event, they at least are not the gratuitous, inflammatory, infantile name-calling that characterize your attacks on other commenters here.

  6. Especially Incognito:

    Lack of tolerance.

  7. Auto de Fe:

    Clayton Hee Maneuver Excludes 1000s of Testifiers


  8. Eric Ryan:

    I hope you're feeling okay, anonymous scaredy-cat poster "Ohia". You seem sad at the prospect of this blog being anything but an echo chamber for your failed ideology. Really, I'm worried about you. Whatever your particular gender and orientation, I hope you finally learn that neither the world nor our islands are populated only by those with your leanings and orientation and identity, whatever that is.

  9. ohiaforest3400:

    I have no problem with a diversity of viewpoints or even of being in the minority or, like you, completely alone. I do have a problem with people who waste our time just stomping their feet and calling everyone else names instead of engaging in reasoned, civil discourse. And don't worry about me; worry about yourself, because no one else is.

  10. Especially Incognito:

    Seems when online with so many
    lemmings they become brave
    but forget that soon they will all
    be going over the cliff.
    Debt ceiling is coming to its end.
    (off topic) but America will battle that issue
    soon. If not met, Civil Union or same sex marriage
    is non-refundable.

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.