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.
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.