• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage | Reuters

[h=1]Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage[/h]
The debate this week in Hawaii, which allows civil unions, comes at a time of increasing momentum for gay marriage in the courts, at the ballot box and statehouses across the country.
The governor stressed that the proposal was crafted to address opponents' concerns that legalizing gay marriage would infringe on religious freedom. The proposal exempts clergy and churches from having to perform same-sex marriages.
"Our whole focus has been on trying to accommodate the First Amendment here with respect to people's religious rights, and that's been done in good faith," Abercrombie said.
Hearings in the state House of Representatives are scheduled to open on Thursday.
Democrats hold an overwhelming majority over Republicans in both chambers - 24-1 in the Senate and 44-7 in the House - virtually assuring passage of a gay marriage bill.

Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie appeared as the first witness in support of the measure with more than 1,800 people signed up to address the state Senate Judiciary Committee during a special session called by the governor.
The debate this week in Hawaii, which allows civil unions, comes at a time of increasing momentum for gay marriage in the courts, at the ballot box and statehouses across the country.
The governor stressed that the proposal was crafted to address opponents' concerns that legalizing gay marriage would infringe on religious freedom. The proposal exempts clergy and churches from having to perform same-sex marriages.
"Our whole focus has been on trying to accommodate the First Amendment here with respect to people's religious rights, and that's been done in good faith," Abercrombie said.
Hearings in the state House of Representatives are scheduled to open on Thursday.
Democrats hold an overwhelming majority over Republicans in both chambers - 24-1 in the Senate and 44-7 in the House - virtually assuring passage of a gay marriage bill.
Back Up links:
Gay Marriage Bill Should Be Passed After More Religious Liberty Protections Are Included | Hawaii Reporter
Hawaii lawmakers question benefits of gay marriage legislation at start of crowded hearing - The Washington Post
Hawaii Set To Legalize Gay Marriage In Special Legislative Session | Bustle
Hawaii could become next state to legalize same-sex marriage - NY Daily News


Seems Hawaii has it locked up and they will be the 15th state to have equal rights!

While i think the extra legislation about protecting churches is a complete puppet show and waste of time since the 1st amendment exists and isn't going anywhere, if it gives the conspiracy theorists and worry warts peace of mind Im fine with it.

Now with that said OF COURSE churches should never be forced to marry anybody and i support that 100% but its a non-issue that never came up before.
Churches discriminate right now! They turn away STRAIGHT couples based on race, being interracial, not religious enough etc everyday because they have the right too and thats not going anywhere.

Anyway early congratulations Hawaii on being state 15 with equal rights.
 
That number is way too low.

agreed!

but the reality is if SCOTUS doesnt get involved before hand it has a very good potential of being around 30 within a years time and 3 more over the next 3 years.

14 states and DC have equal rights:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

19 more are in various stages of fighting or establishing a fight for equal rights

New Mexico – is granting equal rights for now and the SSC is going to decided on this month

Court Case(s) in the works to establish equal rights:
Arkansas
Kentucky
Michigan
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

Court Case(s) and Legislation in the works, which ever wins first:
Arizona
Hawaii
Illinois
Nevada
Ohio


Legislation in the works:
Colorado
Florida
Oregon
 
You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).
 
But it is going up, and that is encouraging.

Ten years ago, I believe it was zero.

correct, 10 years ago this November 2003 will be the anniversary of the first state to grant equal rights, though it didnt take effect until the following year.
 
Hawaii begins debate over whether to legalize gay marriage | Reuters


Back Up links:
Gay Marriage Bill Should Be Passed After More Religious Liberty Protections Are Included | Hawaii Reporter
Hawaii lawmakers question benefits of gay marriage legislation at start of crowded hearing - The Washington Post
Hawaii Set To Legalize Gay Marriage In Special Legislative Session | Bustle
Hawaii could become next state to legalize same-sex marriage - NY Daily News


Seems Hawaii has it locked up and they will be the 15th state to have equal rights!

While i think the extra legislation about protecting churches is a complete puppet show and waste of time since the 1st amendment exists and isn't going anywhere, if it gives the conspiracy theorists and worry warts peace of mind Im fine with it.

Now with that said OF COURSE churches should never be forced to marry anybody and i support that 100% but its a non-issue that never came up before.
Churches discriminate right now! They turn away STRAIGHT couples based on race, being interracial, not religious enough etc everyday because they have the right too and thats not going anywhere.

Anyway early congratulations Hawaii on being state 15 with equal rights.

I would say so. I see no way it could be defeated.
 
1.)You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).

theres no confusion on my part at all so theres nothing for me to do excpte to keep fighting and supporting equal rights for my fellow americans.

If you disagree with the fact this is an equality issue feel free to right the judges that already decided this fact.

"populace" can reject equal rights all they want, its meaningless just like with minority rights, women rights and interracial marriage. And again no matter your opinion YES they are the same. Facts, rights, law, legislation, ordinances, court cases and precedence as already established this.

But you are free to have your opinion no matter how many things prove it wrong.
 
theres no confusion on my part at all so theres nothing for me to do excpte to keep fighting and supporting equal rights for my fellow americans.

If you disagree with the fact this is an equality issue feel free to right the judges that already decided this fact.

"populace" can reject equal rights all they want, its meaningless just like with minority rights, women rights and interracial marriage. And again no matter your opinion YES they are the same. Facts, rights, law, legislation, ordinances, court cases and precedence as already established this.

But you are free to have your opinion no matter how many things prove it wrong.

Yet there are still a majority of states that uphold traditional marriage that have had such definitions for years without them being overturned. Many of them are state constitutional amendments with the people of that state adopting that definition exercising their equal rights to vote and do so.
State sanctioned discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation has everything to do with equal rights.

The default and historic definition of marriage in this nation has been 1 man 1 woman also known as traditional marriage. Including SSM into that definition is a change to policy, not a right to be owed. They do not, and should not, have the right to say that legal definitions that are not as friendly to their sexuality as they want it to be constitutes wrongful discrimination. The default and rule of law is marriage is between 1 man 1 woman unless changed, not that all of a sudden given social changes and changes in thought in some states that it magically becomes a right without such changes in law reflecting that. The state sanctions discrimination would be against voters who have every equal right to uphold traditional marriage and not support changes in popular opinion in some areas of the nation that are legalizing SSM.
 
You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).

No confusion. That's exactly what it is, equal rights!
 
And at one point you could finish that sentence with "of the same race".

That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.
 
That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.

The basis is discrimination based on an innate trait of the individual.

One does not choose to be black.

One does not choose to be gay.

At its core.

SSM ban is state sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).

Marriage equality is an equal rights issue. It is, and that is just the facts of the matter, whether you accept what is right in front of you is your decision though.
 
1.)Yet there are still a majority of states that uphold traditional marriage that have had such definitions for years without them being overturned. Many of them are state constitutional amendments with the people of that state adopting that definition exercising their equal rights to vote and do so.


2.)The default and historic definition of marriage in this nation has been 1 man 1 woman also known as traditional marriage. Including SSM into that definition is a change to policy, not a right to be owed. They do not, and should not, have the right to say that legal definitions that are not as friendly to their sexuality as they want it to be constitutes wrongful discrimination. The default and rule of law is marriage is between 1 man 1 woman unless changed, not that all of a sudden given social changes and changes in thought in some states that it magically becomes a right without such changes in law reflecting that. The state sanctions discrimination would be against voters who have every equal right to uphold traditional marriage and not support changes in popular opinion in some areas of the nation that are legalizing SSM.

1.) yes the same way states had state constitutional amendments with the people of that state adopting that definition exercising their equal rights to vote and do so to deny women, minorities equal rights and to ban interracial marriage.

this changes nothing and just further proves why those amendments are wrong and are going to fail and that this is factually an equal rights issue.

2.) all meaningless and nothing but false opinions.

again all the same illogical arguments that were used to deny rights for minorities, slavery, women and interracial marriage. You are not helping yourself only exposing your failed argument.

the default rule of law was the definition of a man was WHITE man, the default definition of who can vote was NOT A WOMAN etc etc etc

it was all about discrimination, ignorance, denying of equal/human. civil rights and or bigotry then and that remains true today.

Like i said you are free to write all those law makers and judges and tell them they are wrong and that you want discrimination against gays legal. Maybe they will listen.

WHats great about this country though is that you are free to have that opinion and voice that opinion, again no matter how many facts prove you wrong.
 
And at one point you could finish that sentence with "of the same race".

or WHITE when it came to definition of a man
or only MEN and not WOMEN when it came to voters

some how this is magically different though.
 
That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.

its not a straw man and every time you say it is your argument gets destroyed. Since facts, rights, law, legislation, ordinances, court cases and precedence as already established that it is a equal/human and civil rights issue thats that.

also equating gays wanting equal rights to bestiality severely uneducated about the topic and highly offensive but hey, then again so is telling people they cant have equal rights.
 
You need to stop confusing SSM with equal rights. The equal rights extend to all being able to vote and voice their opinion on the issue, not imposing SSM upon a populace that rejects it (not saying this is what happened in HI though, they are a blue state after all).

That strawman gets tossed around all too frequently.

Race =/= sexuality (and it's also a far stretch to try and link upholding traditional marriage to gender discrimination too). It's just like the anti-SSM people wanting to link SSM to polygamy and bestiality or all other kinds of strawmans.

OK, there are a few things wrong with this. I am going to try and not go all Zyphlin on this, but it might end up that way, but please bear with me.

1: SSM can very easily be stated in terms of equal rights. Most simply, woman have a right you do not, which is to marry men. Likewise you have a right women do not, which is to marry women. You are both unequal in that respect, and the court in Loving v Virginia threw out the argument that since you can both denied a group to marry it is equal. Kinda a two wrongs do not make it right kinda thing. Further, you as a straight man have a right gays do not, to marry some one of the gender you are primarily attracted to. Since marriage is recognized as a fundamental right in this country, the state needs to have a justification to do this. How good a justification is up for debate yet since no court to my knowledge has specifically ruled on that aspect. However, no court has to my knowledge found such a justification yet for any level of judicial review.

2: Equal rights extends to far more than just those things you mention. For example equal rights extends to such areas as employment, military service, rights to a trial, and so on and so forth.

3: SSM legality does not impose it on others, any more than allowing interracial marriages imposed those on others. You will not have to marry a dude, or some one of another race. But you could!

4: Traditional marriage in this country has been all over the place, and since common law is the basis for our judicial system, it gets even more all over the place. Further, tradition is not a legitimate reason legally to deny rights. It is a failed argument legally, and a logical fallacy.

5: You are correct that race =/= orientation. However, there are enough similarities that we can look at Loving v Virgina as a guide to see how SSM fits in legally. We have to be careful of taking the comparison too far(this is where the bestiality/polyamory people go wrong) and SSM has to stand on it's own merits, but you also cannot say that they are in no way alike. Both race and orientation are innate aspects of a person. Both are seemingly unchangeable. Neither are innately harmful. And so on. The issue in terms of SSM is whether the differences are enough to make Loving v Virginia no longer be a guide in terms of legality. This is made further complex by this last point:

6: SSM is not exclusively about orientation. There is currently no check to prevent a gay person from marrying some one of the opposite sex in any state in the union. And SSM won't check orientation either. If a straight person chooses to marry some one of the same sex or a gay person chooses to marry some one of the opposite sex, there is nothing to stop them. Orientation is not the determining factor in whether some one can get married in any state. Gender is. Stated with ban SSM ban marriages based on gender, not orientation. In no way can you discount this in any argument about SSM. While you cannot divorce the orientation aspect from SSM, orientation is not what the law limits in terms of marriage, gender is.

So anyway...meh, I think this only rates about a .5 on the Zyphlin scale(he will get the other reference in that comparison tho~). The point in this is that simple dismissal of complex issues rarely work. SSM bans are different from miscegination laws. That does not make mean that the comparison is entirely inaccurate. However, SSM does have to stand or fall on it's own merits, just as polyamory will have to and any other form of marriage people decide they want. Where you and others, including many in favor of SSM, go wrong is that you don't seem to understand where the legal arguments lie. To deny a right, the state has to have legitimate reason to deny it. That is where the beginning and ending of any argument involving SSM should lie: in whether there is a legitimate benefit to the state for not allowing SSM. Without that, SSM is a shoe in from a legal standpoint.
 
Back
Top Bottom