I got up this morning and started looking through the various comments on Gov. Lingle’s veto of HB HB444.
Many people comment on the flawed logic of putting such an issue to a vote.
From http://www.queerty.com/breaking-hawaii-gov-linda-lingle-says-no-to-civil-unions-20100706/#ixzz0t0jCAsxt
Let’s put jews up to a vote? How would you like that, Lingle?
*****
Yeah and if we did the same about women’s right to vote…instead of Governor, Lingle would be cleaning my house.
I saw several references to Lingle’s failed marriages. Here’s one from something called Frenchy’s House Party:
Obviously the twice-married, twice-divorced Lingle is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage (theoretically at least) that she cannot bring herself to let the will of the Legislature and the people of Hawai’i pass her desk.
The Roman Catholic Church in Hawaii claims:
We will ask the legislature next year to consider changes and additions to Hawaii’s reciprocal beneficiary statute to provide for any needs, privileges and protections the proponents of HB 444 were seeking.
I just think that all those who attribute their opposition to HB 444 to their understanding of their own particular religious affliction need to get a head-clearing civics lesson. We shouldn’t be in a position of having to appease religious leaders and their followers on civil matters.
It seems to me that there’s a difference between letting one’s religious values go to work in public life, and the very different approach of taking primary direction from absolutist religious doctrine.
I know I can’t support Sen. Norman Sakamoto for Lt. Governor because, in my view, he put his religious views ahead of his constitutional duties in dealing with this issue. Norman was a high school classmate of mine in a very small class at University High School, and generally I’ve found him to be a thoughtful legislator. But he’s one of those who crossed over that separation of church and state. It’s too bad.
I am bit surprised you republished that garbage this morning even for the sake of discussion — I come to your site for a quality read at breakfast time.
On the issue of religious influence on decision-making — I am ok with leaders seeking spiritual strength to make decisions, but when they are saying their decisions are a result of prayer — then it can get scary.
Lingle’s approach also begs the question, what public policy issues are of such importance as to require a direct plebisite: (1) tax increases; (2) furloughs of children from public schools; (3) housing the homeless; (4) public employee furloughs; (5) mental health services; (6) special education cutbacks? The list is potentially endless. And, I believe there have been some polls that show that a majority of americans would vote to repeal such things as the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures, and Free Speech. This strikes me as a way to “punt” on the issue and appear “populist.”
The public, the Catholic Church, Family Forum is not well enough informed as to the Constitution of the United States and its Citizens Bill of Rights to be able to vote objectively on bill such as HB444. The Governor and Legislators, evidently particularly Say, have thumbed their nose at US Constitution & Equality.
Kimo, getting eferenda on divisive issues like equal rights and abortion on the ballot has worked well for the right wing to get out the vote by their base.
Cynical, transparent, shameful, and sad.
You would think all those constitution loving tea party voters would be all for the equal rights of Americans under the law.
oops. referenda.
I hate going into 444 since reactions get so reflexive sometimes, but I guess I might as well put in my 2 cents this morning.
I support civil unions (and heck, full marriage rights) for gay couples, but I agree that this must go through the voters. I do not agree that this is a civil rights issue, I believe that this is an important social values issue, and therefore must be put to voters.
I reject the civil rights arguments because no rights are denied based on sexual orientation. I am a straight male. My friend is a gay male. NEITHER of us can marry another male. Hence, no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I know that others misuse this example to incite fear, but I use the issue of polygamy because it is instructive in the logical sense. Why don’t we allow polygamy in this country? There is no real reason besides, “That’s not what we do in this country.” It is purely a social values choice. As we all know, polygamy has not been a rarity in history and remains in many societies throughout the world today. The only reason why we don’t have it in America is simply that our society doesn’t support it. (I respectfully suggest that anybody that wants to challenge this post start by answering the question, “Why don’t we allow polygamy in this country?”)
Our historical definition of marriage as between man and woman is similarly a result of our society’s values. Those values are changing, and I believe that full marriage rights for gay couples are inevitable at some point in the future. Yes, this is small comfort for those being denied marriage today, but some decisions have to be made by the majority.
I firmly support full marriage rights for gay couples, but I am equally firm in my believe that my support should be asked for directly at the ballot box.
And I agree with Bill, re-posting those comments is beneath the quality of this blog.
Though I disagree with you, your comments are thoughtful and interesting.
Regarding what is appropriate for Ian’s blog, who is anyone but Ian to say?
It certainly is Ian’s blog, and he is free to relegate my comments to the digital trash heap. I just think that respectful feedback is a good thing.
As an aside, I like the polygamy example simply because that appears to be an inconsistency in the arguments against civil unions and same sex marriage from a Christian religious perspective– I don’t recall any prohibition on polygamy in the Bible yet polygamy is one of the EVILS trumpeted as a possible result of allowing same sex marriages or civil unions. Not to be light, but when you think about it, without polygamy you don’t really get a Jesus (if you accept the genealogies in two of the Gospels — consider just Jacob/Leah/Rachel and David/harem).
You should go see the “Mormon Proposition.” Polygamy is only a sin if it is practiced by gays; Mormons plkan to practice polygamy in the afterlife and would surely do so in the present one if they could (rogues sects aside). And this is why Mormons hate and feel threatened by gays; gays can not directly reproduce and their inability to do so threatens the Mormons’ plan to take over this world and the after-world through runaway procreation. Sick, sick, sick . . . . .
And, if you thought the Prop 8 campaign in California (which was a scaled up version of the 1998 campaign in Hawaii), you an’t seen nuthin’ yet. Dirty tricks, lies, campaign spending violations, you name it. I just wish we could put THEM on the ballot . . . . .
Thought provoking post there, WooWoo.
“Why don’t we allow polygamy in this country?” I agree, because it was banned as the result of “a social values choice.” But note that the choice was made by representative government. It was not put on the ballot, as you advocate civil unions should be.
And, I beg to differ on your assertion that denial of civil unions and marriage equality (I prefer that term to “same sex marriage”) does not involve discrimination. I suggest that you read the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in Baehr v. Lewin. While it was overridden by the 1998 constitutional amendment, it explains quite clearly that the prohibition discriminates on the basis of gender, a protected class.
“Finally,” the one word that demonstrates how wrong, how cynical, how selfish, how cowardly Lingle was in vetoing HB 444 rests in her use of the term “emotional” as the reason for putting civil unions/marriage equality to a vote. We are, indeed, in deep kim chi if we don’t have leaders who can rise above “emotion” in exercising leadership and if, instead, we leave it to “emotion” to decide the rights of minorities in a process where the most powerful emotion, fear, will be exploited and no doubt prevail. The list of issues is too long and others have compiled a much better one but just imagine where we would be if we put racial equality, gender equality, voting equality, reproductive equality, etc. on the ballot.
And people wonder why I am becoming progressively more misanthropic . . . . .
Norman Sakamoto was first elected to the Senate on an anti-gay, conservative-Democrat platform. I also don’t know if there is an empirical basis to call him a thoughtful legislator — at least as it relates to higher education public policy.
To loop this back around to yesterday’s discussion on LG candidates, why doesn’t Sakamoto just come out now for Mufi? Clearly there will be a lot of incompatiblity issues with Neil in the social values arena.
Governor Lingle’s veto clearly stated “Lame” to me. I really expected better of her, although you might call me naive.
She should have taken a position one way or the other. You are well spoken this morning, Ian (again).
Here we go again!
It’s true that I didn’t carefully choose the blogs I cited this morning.
I took advantage of Google’s blog search to come up with widely different perspectives, but didn’t really screen them.
So the criticism is not off base.
Bad dog! A whack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for this blogger!
Alas, this may be the historic note that the Lingle administration is remembered for.
I don’t see where it’s the government’s business to approve ANY marriage, even the classic kind.
Ian has a very smart group reading his column.
To me its like listening to an eclectic radio station, you simply don’t know whats next, but you’ll probably like it. If you don’t, wait a while and something you like will come along.
Americans must be exposed to what they may not agree with otherwise the current fragmentation will worsen.
I for one, did not know about this Sakamoto guy. He will not get my vote for LG, I have it narrowed down to 3 from which to choose, I think.. (That the cheap laugh of this posting.)
Linda Lingle is simply a pandering politician who can’t see beyond her nose, or should it be “knows”.
The candidate who will take this issue on in a mature manner is Neil Abercrombie. Vote for him and get all your friends to.
Sakamoto’s incessant TV commercials are yet another example of the tax-exempt church money at work.
Don’t forget about the “other” anti-CU LG candidate — Bobby Bunda!
I haven’t looked at his reports recently, but heading into this campaign, he had gobs of money donated by the architects and engineers (he being being one of he latter). That only buys so much from candidates for legislative office but might buy more should he make the jump to the executive branch.
I agree WooWoo is thoughtful, so I will ask him to consider his statement that both he and his gay friend are equally barred from marrying a man.
Going back to the First Principles which underlay this interesting experiment, the constitutional republic founded by those who fought the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson took a simple formulation made popular by John Locke, “life, liberty and property” and applied his particular genius to it, unleashing a slightly different and much more liberating interpretation of why people form governments, to create the optimal conditions for “life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The gay man and the straight man, the lesbian and the heterosexual woman are all “equal in the eyes of the law” when they have an equal opportunity to “pursue Happiness” according to their own desires, provided they are not infringing on other people’s rights.
If I like chocolate ice cream and pass a rule that people may only eat ice cream, that rule might be argued to be fair, as it applies equally to those who like chocolate and those who prefer another flavor. A MAJORITY of people might prefer chocolate ice cream, but unless they can demonstrating a “compelling state interest” for barring other ice cream flavors, they have no right to impose their preference on others, even if they were to hold a vote.
So WooWoo, as a reasonable guy, won’t you concede that until we allow people an equal opportunity to marry the person they hope MIGHT bring them happiness, we are not protecting people equally under the law?
I suspect a majority of Hawaii voters would support civil unions. But the idea of subjecting that question to a vote is as offensive to me asking for approval from the majority before recognizing the religious rights of Jews, or Buddhists, or atheists or Muslims.
Lingle took the lazy way out. As you know, I predicted this outcome, but I am still disheartened by the cynicism of her rationale. Hopefully, there are some in the LGBT who know how to play hardball and will surprise her with a punishing response.
Karma is a bitch and she deserves a good dose of it about…now.
Ooops, meant to say :
“If I like chocolate ice cream and pass a rule that people may only eat CHOCOLATE ice cream, that rule might be argued to be fair….”
As usual, good points raised by Kolea and Ohia. I don’t have the time tonight to respond point by point, but I hope you would agree that my view is not wholly without merit.
woowoo, I’m afraid your logic is flawed. Otherwise, one could say that prior to 1967 when anti-miscegnation laws in 16 states was overturned by the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, these laws treated everyone equally.
After all, a black man and a white man was treated equally since neither could marry a woman from a different race. This was the gist of the argument that Virginia made at the high court.
The Court wrote: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Substitute race for sexual orientation and the conclusion is the same. And I believe it ultimately will be this conclusion.
Charles & Company-
*sigh* so much for going to bed early.
Put names to the people and from a strictly logical standpoint Loving v. Virginia is different from my assertion. Richard Loving sued because as a white man, he was denied the right to marry Mildred Jeter under Virginia law. Had he been a black man, he could have married her. Clearly, he was being denied rights based on race alone.
If a hypothetical gay man named Richard Loving were trying to marry another gay man named Milton Jeter, he would be denied. But if Richard were a straight man, he would still be denied. Thus, no discrimination based on sexual orientation. My logic stands.
Ohia’s argument of violation under the gender protected class is actually a much stronger logical argument than the miscegnation one, IMHO. That argument would be that a gay Richard Loving was being discriminated against because he was a man. From a purely logical standpoint, this is a tough nut to crack… it’s technically true.
But judges are closer to politicians in robes than logicians in robes. As Dershowitz said in “America on Trial,” on broad-agenda cases involving large issues of constitutional policy, the justices have made up their minds before taking the case. SCOTUS didn’t need to hear the arguments in Loving v. Virginia, they had already decided that they were going to strike down miscegenation. The other great example is Roe v. Wade. Many great liberal legal scholars and jurists admit that the logic is weak and flawed (from wikipedia- Justice John Paul Stevens, in a 2007 interview, averred that Roe “create[d] a new doctrine that really didn’t make sense,”). But the court decided that they were going to protect abortion, and so they went and did it.
So if SCOTUS wants to make gay marriage legal, they’ll do it, logic be damned. Considering the age of Roberts, the ballot box is a better bet.
I am a straight male. My friend is a gay female.
I can legally marry a woman. My friend cannot, based solely on her sex. How is this not illegal discrimination?
I think it needs to be noted that the reason civil rights issues are not put to a public vote is because voters are allowed to vote whatever passions or prejudices they have.
religious belief is often the justification for bigotry, but that doesn’t make it right when it’s used to deny equality under the law.
legislators, judges, and executives must respect the separation of church and state and are bound by oath to act accordingly (or at least they should, gary okino).
that’s why we call them leaders.
when harry truman integrated the army to fight the korean war, only 13% of the american people agreed with the decision. when the supreme court struck down laws banning inter-racial marriage (in 1967), only 20% of the american people agreed with that decision.
the pacific club was whites only until about 1970, i think. i remember my father always refused to go with his bishop who was a member because he was chinese and knew he would not have been welcome otherwise.
the civil rights of gay people are no more negotiable than those of any other minority.
And as for the polygamy issue, how many of you know a polygamist or someone who wants to be? polygamy was largely a creation of certain religions.
now, how many of you know a gay or lesbian person or have one in your ohana? there is simply no comparison between the two.
i can’t decide if Lingle’s decision was just cynical politics, mere cowardice, or both, but her refusal to take responsibility for her actions and her choice to not just veto, but to call for the potential institutionalization of discrimination in our state constitution thru a public vote will be the abiding and shameful legacy of her time in office.
at least friday furloughs won’t be the only thing we remember about her.
Woowoo, I don’t know if Plato would agree with my logic (or yours) but I think you’re edging into a purist argument.
It’s a variation of some who say there is no discrimination against gays in marriage. After all, a gay man and a lesbian woman can marry. Ergo, no discrimination.
Here’s another way to put it. Say I own a business but I say I will not allow anyone with a religious affiliation to shop. Atheists and agnostics are welcome but that’s it.
I am not discriminating on the basis of religion since I am not allowing any religion.
In other words, since I’m not singling out any one religion, there is no discrimination on the basis of religion. I’m being “fair” about it.
Furthermore, to seal the deal, I can claim that since religion is a choice and not immutable like age, race, etc., anyone who demands equal rights on the basis of religion is merely demanding “special” rights.
Think this would fly in a court of law?
Kolea, can we just go back to your chocolate ice cream point?
Remember Lingle’s last (only) civic minded decision after eight years as Mayor of Maui County was allowing those seeking a ride while standing along the roadside to use a hand gesture such as sticking out their thumb. My hand gesture would be one of a more pointed nature for eight sad years of blah. Dean Little
One day after the Governor’s veto, a federal judge in Massachusetts, appointed by Nixon, ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (that defines the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man and one woman) is unconstitutional. The conclusion at the end (page 38) addresses one of the themes that appears a few times in the above-discussion. The 39-page opinion is at:
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf
Satta, thanks for the link. Here’s the concluding statement of the court:
In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the
government’s proffered rationales, past and current, are without “footing in the realities of the subject addressed by [DOMA].” And “when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. [Because] animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest,” this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.
This court simply “cannot say that [DOMA] is directed to any identifiable legitimate
purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.”
Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.
In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple
entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.
By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals.
To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
woo said-”I reject the civil rights arguments because no rights are denied based on sexual orientation. I am a straight male. My friend is a gay male. NEITHER of us can marry another male. Hence, no discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
consider that your friend wants to marry a man and you don’t. who is being denied? certainly not you. your gay friend looses.
your logic is not flawed but HB 444 was. lingle was lame to veto but why would we expect otherwise from the woman who rammed the superferry and furloughs down our throats.
perhaps the courts will see the way through this one. they have in the past; i pray to god they do it again.
And those who like the veto are saying: “Let’s keep THEM off the island.”
At least that’s what I overheard two female coworkers discussing the day after the veto. One is 20-something, the other 40-something. The latter’s comment: “If HB444 had passed, THEY would all be coming here.” The former said, “YEAH!”
I just kept walking, as I felt arguing about the THEY who are already HERE, THEIR uncles, cousins, friends, would probably be pointless.