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.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.