Quantcast
  

Friday, April 18, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 355 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Gay marriage bill advances to final Senate vote Wednesday

By Star-Advertiser & Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 12:40 a.m. HST, Oct 30, 2013


The state Senate advanced a bill to legalize gay marriage Tuesday to a final floor vote that would send the legislation to the House.

The final Senate vote is planned for Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. Senate Bill 1 is expected to pass easily in the Senate, then travel to the House where its prospects are less certain.

The House Judiciary and Finance committees have scheduled a 10 a.m. hearing Thursday on the measure. If the House makes changes to the bill and passes it, the measure would return to the Senate for another vote.

The bill passed its second Senate reading today with no amendments and no attempts to try to block it from moving forward.

The brief Senate floor session was far different than the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee hearing Monday that lasted nearly 12 hours, with nearly 4,000 pages of written testimony and about 400 people testifying in person.

Late Monday night, the committee voted 5-2 to advance the bill to the full Senate after the marathon hearing in which hundreds of testifiers explored themes of equality and religious liberty, first-class citizenship and the word of God.

The committee vote came after the debate over marriage equality engulfed the state Capitol during the first day of a special legislative session called by Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

"It's historic in the sense that there's a huge paradigm shift, but it's a shift that, in my opinion, bends the arc of justice towards the right way," Sen. Clayton Hee (D, Heeia-Laie-Waialua), the committee's chairman, said after Monday night's vote. "It takes us to a new level of equal rights."

Hee said 40 percent of written testimony came in favor of the bill, while 60 percent opposed gay marriage or the special session being used to consider the legislation.

------

For the full, premium story on Monday's Judiciary Committee hearing, click here.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 355 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(355)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the 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 receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
serious wrote:
It's a done deal, from the President on down, the Democrats want same sex marriage because that's the way the political winds are blowing regardless of the concerns of the citizens. Just pass it and not bore us with useless rhetoric. Now, if the session was held to send a message to Washington that Hawaii wants an exemption from the Jones Act- that would make sense to help the cost of living for the taxpayers---but the political purse strings of our monopolistic shipping industry would not allow that. Follow the money!!!
on October 28,2013 | 05:23AM
Ronin006 wrote:
Serious has it right. It is a done deal. Public input at the senate's hearings will be a farce. Clayton Hee said on TV news last night that he expected to send the gay marriage bill to the House on Tuesday. Clearly, the outcome of the hearings, which have yet to be held, already has been determined. It matters not what the majority of people may want.
on October 28,2013 | 08:05AM
mokebla wrote:
Hawai'i lawmaker aren't worried about the economy or finding and creating jobs, they're worried about their sexual order. Thank you Hawai'i voters, you all put these people in office. Wha put them out of a job!t a waste of taxpayers money, time to
on October 28,2013 | 11:00AM
NITRO08 wrote:
Did you vote?
on October 28,2013 | 12:27PM
mokebla wrote:
I'm not a party voter.
on October 29,2013 | 05:17AM
1local wrote:
democrats are promoting abomination and sod omy
on October 29,2013 | 08:41AM
Fred01 wrote:
You are promoting hate, and will surely rot in hell for eternity.
on October 29,2013 | 10:50AM
Oahuan wrote:
Nope the one who will rot in hell are all those sodo mites.
on October 29,2013 | 12:55PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Oahuan - Is a sodo mite a tiny little sodo?
on October 29,2013 | 04:01PM
hawaiifivo wrote:
Until there is at least 1 single scientific shred of evidence either for or against a Heaven or Hell, you would be wise to keep your sill little superstitions to yourself.
on October 29,2013 | 01:59PM
BigOpu wrote:
I guess that's a no.
on October 29,2013 | 08:42AM
mcc wrote:
You don't get to vote on civil rights.
on October 29,2013 | 08:39AM
Kahu Matu wrote:
First, one's sexual preference is not a civil right. Second, don't you want the legislators to vote for these special benefits? I guess it only matters on how the vote will go. If you know that the vast majority do not want to affirm this style of "family" as normal, then keep it from a vote of the people. If you have a few politicians who will push your agenda, then have them vote quickly and contribute to their cause.
on October 29,2013 | 11:50AM
Fred01 wrote:
You are clearly an ignorant, SELFISH, loser.
on October 29,2013 | 01:00PM
kispest wrote:
fred, go back to the shower and drop the soap.
on October 29,2013 | 01:11PM
Fred01 wrote:
As is the homophobe kispest.
on October 29,2013 | 01:29PM
Kahu Matu wrote:
So if one desires a vote of the people they are "an ignorant, SELFISH, loser" and a "homophobe"? But if you desire a manipulated vote of a few dozen people that is good because it is, in your view, "civil rights"? Get over yourself and let go of all the hatred and anger. You aren't making sense and your intolerance and hate are evident in your responses.
on October 29,2013 | 01:42PM
Eradication wrote:
How do you know the majority of people feel the way you do? Have you spoken to everyone? Ever hear of the silent majority? Using the term "Kahu" in your moniker is a disservice and disrespectful to the Hawaiian culture which has a long standing acceptance of na mahu.
on October 29,2013 | 01:29PM
Kahu Matu wrote:
Put it to the vote. The majority (69%) voted against gay marriage and thousands turned out in town today. There is nothing silent about the majority, it is only that a few very arrogant and stubborn politicians are unwilling to listen to the will of the people.
on October 29,2013 | 01:45PM
hawaiifivo wrote:
@Kahu Matu, the majority of germans also supported Hitler. Good thing we know that 69% of hawaiian voters are ignorant haters.
on October 29,2013 | 02:03PM
Anonymous wrote:
the majority of hawaii is against promoting sod omy
on October 29,2013 | 02:31PM
Kahu Matu wrote:
@ Eradication - you aren't making sense. First, "how do you know the majority of people"? Now, when I validate the majority you go off the deep end with some Hitler reference. No one is pushing genocide, but I fear your thinking may do just that. Please take something to balance yourself out, because you are being completely irrational.
on October 29,2013 | 02:52PM
Anonymous wrote:
Fifteen years worth of voters have come of age since 1998, most of us don't have a problem with same sex marriage.
on October 29,2013 | 02:42PM
mitsuni wrote:
How do you view same sex marriage as a civil right? Why do homosexuals get a special exception to marriage? How and why is one's sexual orientation a way to determine their identity or priviledge? I would like to understand how this makes sense to anyone.
on October 29,2013 | 01:54PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
Exactly. The politicians are circumventing their constituents if they pass this.
on October 29,2013 | 02:25PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
It's time to look at who is in office and who should be ousted. Who is responsible enough to look honestly for laws that discriminate, and change them? And who is determined to change marriage laws to make the Governor happy. In the rush to do the Governor's bidding, our legislators are overlooking a more common sense approach to eliminating any discrimination that might exist in our laws. They should determine which laws discriminate against any two adults who live together but who may not marry (grandparent-grandchild, siblings, first cousins, homosexuals, et al) and fix those laws. Instead they are rushing headlong into a law which would change the laws relating to marriage, an institution that is clearly defined as between one man and one woman. End discrimination instead of traditional marriage.
on October 29,2013 | 06:10AM
allie wrote:
well put. Lot of outside money at work here. Our Legislature looks small and is small.
on October 29,2013 | 06:17AM
false wrote:
Our? Our? - this is not your legislature. Remember yours is in N.Dakota.
on October 29,2013 | 08:44AM
Anonymous wrote:
In the words of Allie - Well put.
on October 29,2013 | 01:02PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Also clearly defined by law at some point in our history:

-owning slaves
-voting rights given to white males only

Societal changes are inevitable (and for the most part, welcome). The law needs to be able to change too. This is one of those times.


on October 29,2013 | 06:57AM
Eradication wrote:
In the United States (specifically, 20 states) it was illegal to marry interracially. The last state to abolish that law did so in 2000! Often, change is necessary and good.
on October 29,2013 | 01:35PM
AhiPoke wrote:
You must be kidding. This state almost never ousts incombents and when we do they're replaced by someone else from the same party with the same leanings. That's why nothing ever changes here.
on October 29,2013 | 08:02AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
You argued against the Reciprocal Beneficiaries legislation and Civil Unions which both did just that. I guess you've evolved... or you've figured out your disingenuous line of reasoning might be a good delaying tactic so you can continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians as you have also advocated in your posts over the years. You keep posting this shibai Mr. Haugen and I will keep reminding the forum of your TRUE colors.
on October 29,2013 | 09:14AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
Green, regular readers will recall the facts and the common sense/logical position I took when you and a small group of homosexuals wanted to be sure the civil union bill applied only to homosexuals and not to other adults living together who may not legally marry. Put your spin on it, but don't lie about my position. I can see why you don't want your real name used. Remember those discussions, when I used my real name (still do) and stand behind what I write; and you live in fear that someone will disagree with you.
on October 29,2013 | 12:33PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Really nawadaha? How utterly hypocritical of you to leave THAT screen name out of your post and your use of it during those discussions when you were adamantly fighting against Civil Unions of any kind ... until the fight was lost and you shifted tactics. You were called out then (and you even admitted it at the time) and you are called out again. You don't like "the homosexuals" and have been clear about that for years. At least some on here admit it. I vehemently disagree with them, but at least they are honest about it. You, however, just hide behind this facade of "reasonableness" on the issue but have no actual intention of equal rights, responsibilities, and benefits for same-sex couples whatsoever. Your shibai is, as always, apparent.
on October 29,2013 | 03:56PM
Too_Much_Pilikia wrote:
YAY! Now the indoctrination and brain washing of our school children is next. Its already happening in mainland grade school curriculums.. The gay agenda will not stop until they force all of their deviant lifestyle down our throats, no pun intended. And you thought it would just end at Civil Unions? Silly rabbits!
on October 29,2013 | 05:30PM
NDN wrote:
Not done deal...not in our State of Hawaii...did you see the capitol today?? People are showing their conviction.
on October 28,2013 | 09:26PM
false wrote:
Pau.
on October 29,2013 | 08:45AM
Kahu Matu wrote:
I would be there if I didn't have to work and take care of a family. Wish I could be there to have our voice heard.
on October 29,2013 | 12:25PM
Brixac3 wrote:
Why aren't Democrats open minded about letting the people make a Democratic choice?
on October 28,2013 | 10:05PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Because that's not how laws are passed. Do you really want to live in a world where the people have to vote on EVERY law? No? Maybe just the important ones? How would we make an objective decision about what is important and what isn't? We elect representatives (they didn't pull that title out of the air) and they cast votes on behalf of their constituency.
on October 28,2013 | 10:56PM
allie wrote:
no hon. This is not "any" law. And you know it
on October 29,2013 | 06:17AM
jomama wrote:
Allie, go back to N Dakota, where a man is a man and a woman is...a man.
on October 29,2013 | 06:43AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
What's next? Should the people be allowed to vote on legalizing gambling? Marijuana? The right carry a concealed handgun? I don't dispute the importance of the law, but my point is that they're ALL important laws, and that's why you elect representatives. It needs to be someone's JOB to look at every bill and evaluate the impact to the populace and make an informed decision based on that research.

You're suggesting that the citizens be allowed to vote on laws, but what would inform their decision? What they see on TV and in the newspapers? You think you want it, but you don't...because proponents of another unrelated law will ask for the same treatment for their cause, and they'd be entitled to it. The system is in place for a reason.

Allie, you're supposedly an imminent college graduate, and I remember thinking I had all the answers back when I finished school. Reality check: you don't know a gd thing yet.


on October 29,2013 | 07:21AM
innocentBystander wrote:
double *like*
on October 29,2013 | 08:33AM
808Warriors wrote:
IRT allie - when you use the condescending term "hon" you are no better than the people you criticize.
on October 29,2013 | 07:48AM
innocentBystander wrote:
quite true.
on October 29,2013 | 08:33AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Who you calling "hon", hon?
on October 29,2013 | 08:32AM
innocentBystander wrote:
*like*
on October 29,2013 | 08:32AM
peanutgallery wrote:
The people have already voted on this and said "no". This is the progressive way of doing things. You either find a judge that gives you what you want, or it comes down the progressive highway where governors propose legislation in special session without public input. Progressive liberals are destroying this country step by step.
on October 29,2013 | 01:53AM
mokebla wrote:
You put enough of them in office, they'll pass their agenda. They speak for the people, so who's to blame? The people who put them in office. Selah~
on October 29,2013 | 05:20AM
ehrhornp wrote:
A lot has changed since that vote. Today it would probably pass as the majority are not afraid of gays. But as I have said, civil rights should not be put to a vote.
on October 29,2013 | 05:36AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Oops forgot not before pass. lol
on October 29,2013 | 07:16AM
Waterman2 wrote:
So put it on the ballot.
on October 29,2013 | 07:19AM
kispest wrote:
so what will be next? Civil right to marry your dog or cat? Legalize rape and robbery? This issue is not about love, it is about MONEY!
on October 29,2013 | 01:18PM
mitsuni wrote:
It is not about fear....I am not afraid of homosexuals. It is about principles and morals, whether you like it or not many in society (often called a majority) see the homosexual lifestyle as immoral and not conducive to building strong familes and most immportantly in vilation of God's definition of rightous. Whether you believe or accept this is irrelvent, it is a fact. The Hawaiin people did vote on this issue and elected to protect the concpet of marriage. Now 77 elected members are moving to change that and are disregarding the peole's concerns. I agree things have changed since the vote in 98. A measure of this significance if it is to pass, should be carefully considered not fast tracked and the people should be heard and should hear from thier elected representatives on how and why they vote the way they do. Cramming it through is an insult to the legal process, this is a sensitive topic and should be handled as such, failure to do so will only cause resentment and further divide the community.
on October 29,2013 | 02:11PM
eoe wrote:
Kind of like citizens united.
on October 29,2013 | 11:18AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Because civil rights are not something that should be put to a vote.
on October 29,2013 | 05:34AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Gay marriage should have been allowed 20 years ago when the supreme court said the state must show a compelling reason to prevent it. To date, no compelling reason has been shown. Even Gabbard is unable to show any threat gay marriage posses to "traditional" marriage.
on October 29,2013 | 05:33AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Good point.
on October 29,2013 | 08:35AM
mikethenovice wrote:
Do not mix same gender marriage and God in the same sentence. Humans wanted this, not God.
on October 29,2013 | 05:34AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Do you have a direct line to the almighty to which marriage equality supporters are not privy?
on October 29,2013 | 08:36AM
false wrote:
So……….you speak for god? What about the Episcopal Church and others?
on October 29,2013 | 08:51AM
jomama wrote:
I saw the bunch of religious fanatics protesting outside the legislature yesterday. Makes you wonder what they are so afraid of. Kind of scary, like a scene out of Jim Crow South.
on October 29,2013 | 06:42AM
innocentBystander wrote:
exactly.
on October 29,2013 | 08:36AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
That wasn't "love" they were screaming at the people driving by. And when I walked down there to see up close for myself, you should have heard the absolute vitriol that they screaming. Christian love? Hardly.
on October 29,2013 | 09:19AM
oiwi808 wrote:
Oh, and when the gays have their own rainbow flag waving session it is neat, polite & just fabulous. Yeah...right
on October 29,2013 | 03:38PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Yes, actually, it is. No one screams invectives at those flag wavings. I go down there to see those for myself also. Have you?
on October 29,2013 | 03:58PM
hawaiikone wrote:
How then do you explain the viciousness we see here? Surely you won't try and deny which side is most guilty.
on October 29,2013 | 07:10PM
frontman wrote:
Vote All who voted for this bill out of office. They are NOT doing the will of the people but are lapdogs for obama
on October 29,2013 | 06:44AM
hawaiifivo wrote:
Actually gay marriage is a Libertarian (and should be a conservative platform) considering us Libertarians & Conservatives dont like BIG Gov't beuocraacy meddling in our personal business. Freedom involves not having BIG brother tell me who or what i can marry, thats a personal decision between me and my partner. Ahhh I love the hypocrisy of Conservative Christians....
on October 29,2013 | 01:57PM
frontman wrote:
Marriage is between a MAN and A WOMAN..........PERIOD.
on October 28,2013 | 06:58AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
In your church, fine. Under Civil law, different story. You don't own the word.
on October 28,2013 | 07:25AM
8082062424 wrote:
here the thing green. the word has always meant one man one woman. that fact they have to redefine it sort of proves that
on October 28,2013 | 09:54AM
emagination808 wrote:

Taken from the Mirriam-Wbester website

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife : a similar relationship between people of the same sex : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

See definition 2


on October 28,2013 | 12:54PM
8082062424 wrote:
then why does this state and other have to redefine the meaning . i wonder when the second meaning was added
on October 28,2013 | 01:04PM
emagination808 wrote:
When it was added is irrelevant. The fact is that it is now an acceptable definition according to society. It also shows that as society evolves so do the meaning of words.
on October 28,2013 | 02:52PM
oiwi808 wrote:
what society? Why not vote (AGAIN) and see what happens? If traditional marriage wins, the gays will fight again. If the gays win...pau fight. Why can something be defeated over & over, but just win 1 time and pau?
on October 29,2013 | 03:43PM
busterb wrote:
Interesting. I wonder what Merriam-Webster says.
on October 28,2013 | 03:44PM
serfboy wrote:
Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. Dictionaries reflect the current vernacular. For example: tweet used to mean the sound a bird makes. Now it also means to post a message via social media. "Horny" in the 1940's used to mean that a person talked on the phone (the "horn") a lot. Now it means something completely different. Dictionaries are not the final word on definitions.
on October 28,2013 | 07:40PM
localguy wrote:
Wow, even the dictionary covers gay marriages. Good to see Mirriam-Webster has moved ahead with the times.
on October 29,2013 | 05:24AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
Webster would roll over in his grave if he knew that someone is using his good name to say that marriage means a legal union between two men, or two women.
on October 29,2013 | 12:27PM
mokebla wrote:
So you saying there's a right and a wrong, "BUT!" There's no but, he didn't make a mistake when HE created man..
on October 29,2013 | 05:24AM
innocentBystander wrote:
There are no mistakes.
on October 29,2013 | 08:38AM
oiwi808 wrote:
So a heterosexual or homosexual marriage MUST have a husband and a wife. If a man cannot be a wife & a woman cannot be a husband....then i presume 2 people of the same sex cannot be married unless one becomes the opposite of their birth gender.
on October 29,2013 | 03:40PM
ehrhornp wrote:
Actually it is the other side that has tried to redefine marriage. In California decades ago a judge married two gays after investigating the law and finding no reason not to do it. Why do phony conservatives hate the law?
on October 29,2013 | 05:40AM
Kuniarr wrote:
The ambiguity of the words for profit as basis for providing religious exemption makes SB1 open to challenges as being unconstitutional.
>br> The particular provision of SB1 that grants religious exemption is the following
(3) Protect religious freedom and liberty by:

******(B) Clarifying that unless a religious organization
********** allows use of its facilities or grounds by the
********** general public for weddings for profit, such
********** organization shall not be required o make its
********** facilities or grounds available for solemnization
********** of any marriage celebration.

for profit.

The ramification of all kinds of interpretation of the word for profit can cause the Marriage Equality law to be used to require its facilities or grounds available for solemnization of any marriage celebration.

For it is a fact that religious organization either charges a fee or asks for a donation in the use of its facilities or grounds available for solemnization of a marriage celebration that subscribes to their faith.

A religious organization that charges a fee or asks for a donation could be deemed as allowing use of its faciities or grounds by the general public for weddings for profit. And consequently be compelled by lawn to allow not only same-sex marriage ceremony to be held on its facilities or grounds but also for any marriage celebration such as a Moslem marriage celebration or a Protestant marriage celebration in the facilities or grounds of a Catholic church.
on October 28,2013 | 02:48PM
HanabataDays wrote:
I think the ambiguity here is much more about the meaning of "the general public". Certainly, members of the church's own congregation (or members of the same denomination but from a different home church) don't fall in that category. BUT -- Christians of another denomination, members of another religion, and secular couples who just think it'd be a pretty church for a wedding, do fit the usual definition of "the general public". If a church marries people in those groups, for a fee or (wink!) donation, they relinquish the right to be picky. Keep in mind this provision is written to PROTECT churches who don't host weddings for profit. It's automatically INCLUSIVE, not exclusive -- it has to be demonstrated that a given church DOES host general-public weddings for profit, and only then will they have to relinquish the protection afforded by this provision. In other words, they have to choose Mammon as their master instead of God -- in that event, they're like any other business.
on October 29,2013 | 06:44AM
8082062424 wrote:
it not hard mainland church's have done it. change there by laws that they only perform marriage as defined by the bible
on October 29,2013 | 07:06PM
TheFarm wrote:
Exactly. The bill protects churches and clergy that may still want to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but it also makes sure government and business treat all families equally. Itʻs a good bill, long overdue.
on October 28,2013 | 03:09PM
kolohepalu wrote:
Exactly.
on October 28,2013 | 08:39PM
GorillaSmith wrote:
Closet Man, There are way too many periods in your screed.
on October 28,2013 | 07:26AM
false wrote:
ZZZZZZZZZ………..ZZZZZZZZZZ
on October 28,2013 | 08:53AM
Venus1 wrote:
Re phrase.... "In my opinion, marriage is between a MAN and A WOMAN..........PERIOD.
on October 28,2013 | 11:41AM
honopic wrote:
Key words: "in YOUR OPINION." Unless you're a legislator, your opinion is just that. And everyone else has one, too. As it looks now, most don't agree with yours.
on October 28,2013 | 09:10PM
peanutgallery wrote:
Actually, they do agree with him. When the folks voted on this, they said "no" in resounding fashion.
on October 29,2013 | 01:55AM
ehrhornp wrote:
Just curious but do you think they would still vote like they did? Answer is obviously NO! But civil rights should not be voted on.
on October 29,2013 | 05:43AM
8082062424 wrote:
Jo-Ann Adams, chairwoman of the GLBT Caucus of the Democratic Party, said letting people vote on the definition of marriage is not the answer. "Do you think it's going to be a fair vote? How can you think it's going to be a fair vote? It wasn't before. Helloooo! We've been there!" Adams shouted. she sure think they would loose
on October 29,2013 | 07:09PM
allie wrote:
Still think the people should vote. Hard to trust or respect this legislature. They are so very inept and corrupted by money.
on October 28,2013 | 12:39PM
localguy wrote:
And how is that different from any past or future legislature?
on October 28,2013 | 02:18PM
retire wrote:
We did vote, back in 1996, and won, traditional marriage was upheld. Now the politicians are pandering to public sentiment and ignoring what the people voted for previously.
on October 28,2013 | 02:32PM
ehrhornp wrote:
What a waste of time that was. I said at the time that this was stupid and will just result in a lot of wasted time. Now it is finally being reversed. Thank God. This should never have been put to a vote. Senator Gabbard has never answered what threat gay marriage poses so called traditional marriage. Stop being afraid of imaginary threats.
on October 29,2013 | 05:46AM
TheFarm wrote:
This is an inane objection. We elect our legislators to pass laws. They are our voice. If you donʻt like it, vote for different people in an election, but you donʻt get to demand a statewide constitutional amendment on something just because you are losing. Bob McDermott, the legislator driving this idea is a nutjob. (An elected one, but thatʻs on Ewa Beach. ;)
on October 28,2013 | 03:14PM
Pocho wrote:
the majority of the public don't care! one way or the other.
on October 28,2013 | 06:45PM
mokebla wrote:
Allie, the most productive post you ever produced.
on October 29,2013 | 05:28AM
frontman wrote:
Mark this day.............. something of value comes out of his mouth,
on October 29,2013 | 07:18AM
Fred01 wrote:
Rot in hell you Jesus hating loser.
on October 28,2013 | 02:14PM
peanutgallery wrote:
You're classic example of today's progressive liberal spanker.
on October 28,2013 | 04:11PM
eoe wrote:
except everyone on this board knows fred is a rightie
on October 29,2013 | 11:19AM
honopic wrote:
Is that what Jesus would say? If so, Lord save us all from your so-called "believers."
on October 28,2013 | 09:12PM
monkseal2 wrote:
Jesus was love. What you just said was not about love. You should not invoke Jesus if you not coming from a place of love. Shame on you Fred01. Big shame!
on October 28,2013 | 11:39PM
Fred01 wrote:
Are those who are protesting equal rights in the name of Jesus coming from a place of love? I think not.
on October 29,2013 | 01:11PM
IAmSane wrote:
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
on October 28,2013 | 04:29PM
ehrhornp wrote:
Not necessarily the case. This is changing rapidly. Soon Hawaii will allow gay marriage. They join much of the world in this. My only regret is that we were not number one.
on October 29,2013 | 05:38AM
Slow wrote:
My niece married her partner. Now my "traditional" marriage is ruined. Darn those gays and their agenda.
on October 28,2013 | 08:59AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Indeed. If the only victim here is someone's (or a group of someone's) sensibilities, then I'd tell those folks to bite their tongue, and try to be inclusive not exclusive.
on October 28,2013 | 11:02PM
innocentBystander wrote:
Ridiculous, isn't it?
on October 29,2013 | 08:41AM
Kuniarr wrote:
"If same-sex couples are given the legal right to marry under the pretense that discrimination that excludes them from marriage is unjust, why would people who prefer several spouses at the same time not be afforded the same right? Why would we taxpayers be exempt from paying for marital benefits for all those spouses?

Why would there be discrimination against those who decide to marry their mother or father, brother or sister, so that they can gain spousal benefits for them?

Once we give in to the false notion that same-sex couples have a right to marry, how can we reasonably deny the same “right” to anyone who chooses to enter a “marriage” with a close relative, a minor (with consent)? ..."
on October 28,2013 | 10:31AM
al_kiqaeda wrote:
Saying, "I love my dog...she's a part of my family" will become an uncomfortable thing to say.
on October 28,2013 | 12:53PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The comment opposes same sex-marriage on the ground that the justification used is about equal rights to same-sex couples restricted by current law from marriage except that the current law also restricts several other couples. Meaning that under the rule of equal rights granted to one, should also be granted to the rest.
on October 28,2013 | 02:22PM
localguy wrote:
Kuniarr - Twice nothing is still nothing, your post has no point, totally clueless.
on October 28,2013 | 02:19PM
Kuniarr wrote:
If you can not see the point, it is not my fault but yours.
on October 28,2013 | 05:26PM
localguy wrote:
Kuniarr - Your post made no point, aimless ranting, sign of a clueless person who cannot accept reality.
on October 29,2013 | 05:26AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Sorry. If you have nothing to do, do not do it here.
on October 29,2013 | 11:11AM
Fred01 wrote:
Are you really that stupid?
on October 28,2013 | 02:23PM
Ulalei wrote:
to be fair to everyone, no one should be allowed to marry
on October 28,2013 | 02:33PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
3,245,678 divorce lawyers are cursing you.
on October 28,2013 | 03:30PM
boshio wrote:
funny.....
on October 28,2013 | 06:22PM
innocentBystander wrote:
big supporters of marriage equality...
on October 29,2013 | 08:43AM
emagination808 wrote:

@Kuniarr - If that truly is your argument against SSM then you should also be against giving heterosexual couples benefits under our current laws since that is discrimination against all those "relationships" above as well as same sex couples. Your fight should not be with SSM but with the discrimination of benefits given by our government.

However, something tells me that your argument about benefits is simply a strawman to hide your true feelings.


on October 28,2013 | 02:58PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Under the premise of Equal Rights , those restricted under the current marriage law as those targetted in SSM also have the very same rights to be excluded from the restriction to get married under present law the same manner as those granted under the SSM.

Same sex couples are not the only group that are restricted from getting married under present laws. Other groups are also restricted. Now then. Removing the restriction to one group (same sex couples) to the exclusion of other groups that are allowed to get married is unjustly discriminating against those other groups.
on October 29,2013 | 02:08PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
I've got a question: If a goose in it's plurality is geese, and mouse is mice, then why is spouse not spice or speece? Just saying.
on October 28,2013 | 04:38PM
innocentBystander wrote:
:D
on October 29,2013 | 08:44AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
You're kidding, right? Your point doesn't even stand up as a strawman.
on October 28,2013 | 11:03PM
localguy wrote:
Kuniarr - Clearly a product of the Nei's acutely dysfunctional education system, lacking in understanding what goes on in the modern world. Sad..............
on October 29,2013 | 05:25AM
Kuniarr wrote:
localguy - Clearly so dense so much so as not to understand that a religious institution as the Catholic Church should not e subject to the whims and fancies of any and all bureaucrat who would interpret as for profit a Catholic church accepting donation or charging a fee for a wedding.

And only a person without any brains at all would never understand why and on what grounds would the words for profit be considered ambiguous and so make the law unconstitutional.
on October 29,2013 | 01:53PM
BigOpu wrote:
Well, if those other couples numbered in the tens of millions and badgered the politicians nationwide for change, then they might just get a shot at being accepted. It's all about the numbers. Big is better. Basically how Indians can get recognized as native Americans, and Hawaiians not. Please don't get bent out of shape if I mentioned your race in all of this, just making my point. When you think about it, that's what changes societies norm. When what was considered a minority becomes a contender. Many of us may not choose to live the lifestyle, but laws should adjust to consider their growing presence. Shaking up your core beliefs can be a tough thing to accept. I'm not threatend by it. My girls are still going to understand who Mom & Dad is, and I'm going to influence a Man/Woman relationship...until I realize that may not be their choice on how they want to roll. I can accept that.
on October 29,2013 | 09:14AM
kailua90 wrote:
Why are we paying these incompetent legislatures to return for a "Special" session!! What a waste of tax payers $$$!
on October 28,2013 | 10:51AM
Lavakane wrote:
Your a 100% right. Plus it is non of their business.
on October 28,2013 | 03:39PM
ehrhornp wrote:
What was a waste of money and time has been the battle over gay marriage over the past 20 years. How stupid but at least we are moving back in the right direction.
on October 29,2013 | 06:50AM
titasmom wrote:
Interesting point, Kuniarr. Did I miss something? Wasn't passing the civil unions bill supposed to give same sex partners all the rights and responsibilities that marriage gives to male/female couples? Is it just the word that same sex couples want to use? Well, there's no way a word can be prevented from being used, so use it. Just don't make it a law that people who don't believe in same sex partners would be breaking the law if they don't wish to participate in marrying these people (ie. forcing them to do something they don't believe in). I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will marry same sex couples.
on October 28,2013 | 11:37AM
lee1957 wrote:
Hawaii has had de facto same sex marriage since civil unions were enacted last session. This is a mere formality to enable Federal benefits, which are available so same sex married couples but not civil unions. This battle was lost last year.
on October 28,2013 | 11:41AM
ValI wrote:
I just went to a school meeting where they talked about not being able to take the children to educational activities because there was no money to pay for transportation or participate in these educational opportunities. Yet the Governor can call a special session for allowing Marriage Equality, which can be brought up again in regular session. More money wasted for lesgislators that could not resolve this issue in the last session. So we are saying they will decide during this special session? Really ... why? All to spend the mighty buck that we don't have to spend. It's ok for us to let the homeless issue wait for the next session and the educational issues to wait for the next session. WHY IS THIS MARRIAGE EQUALITY something that needs to rise above all the other issues???? We just seen an increase in tourism this past year ....So what is the rush in having to decide this issue now in 2 weeks .... So that there will be gays that want to come to Hawaii to get married and honeymoon here in Hawaii? What an example you have been to the children of this state. Don't do the work when it is due just pay to extend the deadline and make it conform to your schedule. Auwe! the longer this session goes the less will be available for programs that are more important!
on October 28,2013 | 11:47AM
allie wrote:
$$$ is what drives Neil. He is a phony but what is new?
on October 28,2013 | 12:40PM
Pocho wrote:
What is Neil smoking?
on October 28,2013 | 06:46PM
mokebla wrote:
The same stuff he was smoking since coming to Hawai'i form New York.
on October 29,2013 | 05:33AM
al_kiqaeda wrote:
Because the Rainbow Coalition has been quietly, but steadily, installing their people into the decision making part of the government. They said they would do it a couple of decades ago and they made good on their word. Meanwhile, the other side has been caught sleeping behind the wheel and are waking up just before hitting the telephone pole.
on October 28,2013 | 12:56PM
HanabataDays wrote:
Yep, we actually said it more like 35 years ago but you're right. The Culture War is over -- and the good guys won. "Quick and fast may set the pace -- but slow and steady wins the race".
on October 29,2013 | 06:51AM
Lesher wrote:
Well said Vall!
on October 28,2013 | 01:51PM
innocentBystander wrote:
Recent Supreme Court Decision practically necessitated marriage equality be made law.
on October 29,2013 | 08:46AM
FAS wrote:
In today's Senate hearing the Attorney General stated that we should pass this bill because without it, hawaii same-sex couples are faced with the "substantial burden" of having to travel to another state where they can get legally married. Following the Attorney General's logic, Hawaii should also legalize gambling, since it is clearly and likewise a "substantial burden" for the thousands of Hawaii residents who are forced to travel to Las Vegas to because they wish to legally gamble.
on October 28,2013 | 11:50AM
NITRO08 wrote:
Sounds good!
on October 28,2013 | 12:30PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Very Good analogy-I like your thinking!
on October 28,2013 | 01:09PM
boshio wrote:
Better yet, it is easy and great to move to California or Las Vegas. Bye......
on October 28,2013 | 06:27PM
NITRO08 wrote:
THEN YOU GO!
on October 28,2013 | 10:09PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The ambiguity of the words for profit as basis for providing religious exemption makes SB1 open to challenges as being unconstitutional.
>br> The particular provision of SB1 that grants religious exemption is the following
(3) Protect religious freedom and liberty by:

******(B) Clarifying that unless a religious organization
********** allows use of its facilities or grounds by the
********** general public for weddings for profit, such
********** organization shall not be required o make its
********** facilities or grounds available for solemnization
********** of any marriage celebration.

for profit.

The ramification of all kinds of interpretation of the word for profit can cause the Marriage Equality law to be used to require its facilities or grounds available for solemnization of any marriage celebration.

For it is a fact that religious organization either charges a fee or asks for a donation in the use of its facilities or grounds available for solemnization of a marriage celebration that subscribes to their faith.

A religious organization that charges a fee or asks for a donation could be deemed as allowing use of its faciities or grounds by the general public for weddings for profit. And consequently be compelled by lawn to allow not only same-sex marriage ceremony to be held on its facilities or grounds but also for any marriage celebration such as a Moslem marriage celebration or a Protestant marriage celebration in the facilities or grounds of a Catholic church.
on October 28,2013 | 02:44PM
HanabataDays wrote:
Marriage by individuals of whatever gender is the biggest form of "legalized gambling" ever devised.
on October 29,2013 | 06:52AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Gambling is a luxury, marriage is a right.
on October 29,2013 | 08:48AM
Kahu Matu wrote:
Is there any real discussion on this matter or has the political entity already determined what they are doing and merely placating the majority of the population of Hawaii who opposes such a move? This is just more theatre as none of the politicians will listen to their constituents.
on October 28,2013 | 11:51AM
Kuihao wrote:
The discussion has been going on for more than 20 years. Do you have something new to contribute to it? Apparently not.
on October 28,2013 | 12:21PM
scooters wrote:
Waste of my tax dollars. Stupid Governor!
on October 28,2013 | 12:27PM
allie wrote:
fat potato!
on October 28,2013 | 12:41PM
boshio wrote:
Please do not vote for Abercrombie anymore. Matter of fact with his enept to govern, he may rather not serve the second term. After all he is in his 70's already.
on October 28,2013 | 06:29PM
Pocho wrote:
Garrans they Vote Neil in for his 2nd term!
on October 28,2013 | 06:47PM
NITRO08 wrote:
GO BACK HOME.
on October 28,2013 | 10:10PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
What's next? A man suing the state because he cannot use a women's bathroom because of his gender? The definition of marriage between a man and women was never ever meant to be discriminatory. Certain genders have rights and laws to protect them that the opposite gender do not have. Let's not blur the lines to appease a few.
on October 28,2013 | 12:59PM
Fred01 wrote:
Wow. Ignorant.
on October 28,2013 | 02:20PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
Sticks and stones Fred. Name one thing I said that was ignorant?
on October 28,2013 | 04:57PM
innocentBystander wrote:
Single sex restrooms supply a public/private space for people with similar junk. Homosexual marriage will allow citizens to officially commit to each other's similar junk. Seems like we've been incongruent all along.
on October 29,2013 | 08:59AM
false wrote:
Really? You just might want to rethink what you just said. If fact talk about that with your wife or significant other. I'd be interested what they say. LOL
on October 28,2013 | 02:40PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
I just did False and she disagreed with me so I told her to go iron the clothes. LOL.
on October 28,2013 | 04:56PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Instead of looking at it as changing the law to "appease a few", why don't we say we're changing the law "to include a few more"? That's really what this is about. If you're against SSM, how does having it recognized actually affect you? I'm guessing it doesn't.
on October 28,2013 | 11:08PM
ejkorvette wrote:
Don't legalize gay marriage. It is an Abomination!
on October 28,2013 | 01:36PM
Fred01 wrote:
You will rot in hell you God-hating bigot.
on October 28,2013 | 02:20PM
false wrote:
And the seas will swallow everyone up?
on October 28,2013 | 02:40PM
innocentBystander wrote:
I will pray for you.
on October 29,2013 | 09:01AM
KKawa wrote:
Senator Hee, such words are shocking. What will it do, other than inconvenience same-gender couples from having to leave the state to get married? That is no different than southern states inconveniencing blacks a little by requiring them to drive 20 miles to use another swimming pool, or forcing a woman to drive to another state to find a physician to help her with her constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
on October 28,2013 | 01:58PM
kuewa wrote:
The small time local financial issues being discussed by the Legislature apparently ignore the bigger picture legal reason for equal rights.The overturning of DOMA led to a requirement by the Federal government to recognize all State-based definitions of marriage. As a consequence, residents of states that do not allow same sex marriage are being denied those Federal tax and inheritance benefits that may be based in part on state laws, creating a potentially unconstitutional situation of unequal protection under the law. This type of argument has already led to court decisions nullifying anti-same sex marriage laws in other states. And for those who are still arguing for another popular vote on this issue, you should remember that Constitutional guarantees on civil rights are not subject to popular vote. If such rights were subject to popular vote, most of us who are non-white and non-wealthy would be non-persons.
on October 28,2013 | 02:16PM
Ulalei wrote:
Jesus loves the little children, all of the children of the world! (except homos)
on October 28,2013 | 02:27PM
false wrote:
There sure are a lot of sick little puppies who really believe that they speak for all no less for Jesus.
on October 28,2013 | 02:42PM
honopic wrote:
You can't possibly be that ignorant. Can you?
on October 28,2013 | 09:21PM
innocentBystander wrote:
Thanks for breaking the tension and opening some eyes (it was a joke people!).
on October 29,2013 | 09:04AM
Kuniarr wrote:
The ambiguity of the words for profit as basis for providing religious exemption makes SB1 open to challenges as being unconstitutional.
>br> The particular provision of SB1 that grants religious exemption is the following
(3) Protect religious freedom and liberty by:

******(B) Clarifying that unless a religious organization
********** allows use of its facilities or grounds by the
********** general public for weddings for profit, such
********** organization shall not be required o make its
********** facilities or grounds available for solemnization
********** of any marriage celebration.

for profit.

The ramification of all kinds of interpretation of the word for profit can cause the Marriage Equality law to be used to require its facilities or grounds available for solemnization of any marriage celebration.

For it is a fact that religious organization either charges a fee or asks for a donation in the use of its facilities or grounds available for solemnization of a marriage celebration that subscribes to their faith.

A religious organization that charges a fee or asks for a donation could be deemed as allowing use of its faciities or grounds by the general public for weddings for profit. And consequently be compelled by lawn to allow not only same-sex marriage ceremony to be held on its facilities or grounds but also for any marriage celebration such as a Moslem marriage celebration or a Protestant marriage celebration in the facilities or grounds of a Catholic church.
on October 28,2013 | 02:41PM
Truth wrote:
The problem with this issue is simple. This is a legal issue vs a moral or religious issue. The legislature is in this position because the people fell their moral point of view supersceeds the legality of the issue. Jesus, if you believe in him, will stand in judgement of all. Who are we to interceed. This doesn't mean you have to like the decision, It means you have to respect the decision as a legal decision.
on October 28,2013 | 03:56PM
JusInsane wrote:
You think gay marriage is the end... what is next? California has become the first state in the nation to require public schools to add lessons about gay history to social studies classes, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the landmark bill on Thursday. You, as a parent will not be allowed to opt out of this. They will indoctrinate you children.
on October 28,2013 | 04:16PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
You are correct. Children will be taught that homosexuality is normal when in fact it is not. I'm not saying it is wrong just that it is not normal for persons of the same sex to be attracted to each other.
on October 28,2013 | 05:02PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
For them it is. Who made you the judge of their love and/or attraction?
on October 28,2013 | 09:22PM
honopic wrote:
Who are you to define "normal"? Just because you are not "attracted" to persons of the same sex, you consider yourself "normal" but others are not? What about persons attracted to those of other races? Other skin colors? Other religions? Other nationalities? Other parentage? Other political beliefs? Other ages? Other financial status? Come on! Nobody's asking you to change who you are. How dare you expect other people to change who they are to fit your definition of "normal."
on October 28,2013 | 09:30PM
blackmurano wrote:
honopic, God of the Bible says in Romans chapter one that homosexuals and lesbians "Are Not normal." In fact God says they have a "debased mind." God did not create homosexuals or lesbians. He cannot contradict His Holy Word about the sin of homosexuality and formed a homosexual or lesbian in your mother's womb. Read Romans chapter one, God's wrath on the sin of homosexuality.
on October 29,2013 | 12:22AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Humans wrote the Bible, probably even a few gay humans.
on October 29,2013 | 09:08AM
inverse wrote:
No worry about that brudah and sistah girls. Board of Education chair, former First Haw aiian bank CEO and current HART chair Horner now turned minister, will NEVER let that happen.
on October 29,2013 | 03:48AM
innocentBystander wrote:
There is no such thing as "normal", just like there's no such thing as "super-natural". It's all normal, it's all natural, it's all God. Until you understand this, you will live a miserable life.
on October 29,2013 | 09:07AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
What the hell is "gay history"?
on October 28,2013 | 11:10PM
Venus1 wrote:
Maybe Gays could pay more taxes, do community service to earn their rights!
on October 28,2013 | 04:16PM
honopic wrote:
Gays (or any other group of Americans) do not have to "earn" their rights! They have the same rights as you, if you were born here or naturalized as a citizen of this great country. Who else would you have "pay more taxes, do community service" to be granted their rights under the Constitution? Dark-skinned people with accents? Bald fair-skinned males over 40? Obese women with cats? Don't you see how ridiculous you sound?
on October 28,2013 | 09:37PM
blackmurano wrote:
What does the following people have in common: Black, red, yellow, white, and brown, female, and handicapped. All were created by God and unfortunately live in a world that discriminate. As for the homosexal and lesbian, God did not create them. Each of us were created with a conscience to choose what is right and what is wrong. Homosexuals and lesbians chose their behavior instead of what they were created for as a male or a female. Again God did not create homosexual or lesbians. He cannot contradict His holy word (Bilble) that has many scriptures on the sin of homosexuality.
on October 29,2013 | 12:18AM
innocentBystander wrote:
God created it all.
on October 29,2013 | 09:09AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Holy smokes you're ignorant.
on October 28,2013 | 11:10PM
JusInsane wrote:
You think gay marriage is the end... what is next? California has become the first state in the nation to require public schools to add lessons about gay history to social studies classes, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the landmark bill. You, as a parent will not be allowed to opt out of this. They will indoctrinate your children.
on October 28,2013 | 04:22PM
CloudForest wrote:
Bill, Ed, Ted and Betty are all madly in love - and it soooo important that they are allowed to get married, if not we are all manyaphobes!
on October 28,2013 | 05:25PM
boshio wrote:
They can easily move to California. Bye.
on October 28,2013 | 06:19PM
boshio wrote:
This issue is nothing more than a massive open door ticket for benefit fraud for the taking to same sex marriage. The legistator should not vote for or against and put it to the voters to decide. Look, this should not have even come to a special session. Abercrombie is just taking the easy way out and shoving it to the legistators.
on October 28,2013 | 06:17PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
What's stopping two heterosexual people from committing this same benefit fraud? Try again old man.
on October 28,2013 | 11:11PM
roadsterred wrote:
When the day comes that a same-sex couple can produce a child without the use of artificial means is the day we can call it a marriage. Until then, it's just two people of the same gender forming a civil union/partnership. Our government has passed laws which provide benefits to married couples. To prevent discrimination, it's time for these laws to be repealed.
on October 28,2013 | 06:42PM
honopic wrote:
Marriage has nothing to do with children. It also has nothing to do with religion, despite what the zealots say. It is a civil contract, and one that should be available to all adults who choose to commit to it. For those who elect to formalize it in a church, synagogue or temple, that's fine. Others choose to do it before a justice of the peace, and that's fine, too. The point is the commitment to one another and the legal rights and requirements that go with it. Choicies about children are between the two parties, and nobody else's business.
on October 28,2013 | 09:43PM
aomohoa wrote:
A voice of reason. Mahalo
on October 28,2013 | 09:58PM
NITRO08 wrote:
CORRECT!
on October 28,2013 | 10:12PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Finally. Someone with some sense.
on October 28,2013 | 11:12PM
Cricket_Amos wrote:
What a load of rubbish. The word marriage comes from the Latin maritare, which contains the idea of procreation. It is why it is restricted to a man and a woman. It is a cornerstone of civilization and until we had it mankind made little progress. It is a basic fact or life and your puerile attempt to say it is only about commitment is not only ignorant of biology but of most of human history.
on October 29,2013 | 08:05AM
CnDnM wrote:
Does that imply that a barren women should not be able to marry? Or does it nullify a marriage once a woman is no longer able to have children?
on October 29,2013 | 09:20AM
knowsy12 wrote:
Should a heterosexual married couple who CHOOSE not to have children, be forced to dissolve their "maritare", and enter into a civil union? Let's see.... since you both are __ yrs old and infertile, you shouldn't marry. Since you had _____ ( any disease affecting reproduction), you must go the civil union route. talk about rubbish....
on October 29,2013 | 01:45PM
innocentBystander wrote:
What about a heterosexual couple that can't "produce a child without the use of artificial means"?
on October 29,2013 | 09:12AM
jrboi96786 wrote:
Here's what I think... It's not of anyones business to tell people who to love. I believe in one man and one women for marriage because that what the bible said, however who the hell am I to shove my belief to people's throat? I have my belief and I will practice it. Neither God nor Jesus ever said that it is our responsibility to force our religion to everyone who doesn't believe it. But as far as I am concern, this is America and we can do what ever we want as long as we don't hurt or kill anyone. It's ok to have people protesting against this movement because it's their rights but don't stop people for marrying people who they love. This country was founded by those who seek to practice what they believe without being persecuted, now its a total contradiction to the very foundation of this country.
on October 28,2013 | 08:47PM
blackmurano wrote:
If you believe in the Holy Bible and have "read it", than why do you say you don't shove your belief down people throat? Jesus Christ said go out into the world and preach the Gospel to everyone and tell them all God's truth. What is God's truth on marriage? God ordain marriage as a covenant for one man and one woman. You seem to be saying, don't offen those that belief differently than you do. No, that's not what God is saying. If you don't tell them the truth about marriage, they would think it's okay with God when it is NOT!!. If you don't tell them the truth, than you are "ashamed of Jesus Christ (God)." Telling the truth will hurt and offend those that are in a sinful lifestyle like homosexuality. But telling the truth even those circumstances is pure Godly love.
on October 29,2013 | 12:14AM
innocentBystander wrote:
There's a difference between preaching and imposing your beliefs on others. You're not allowed to do the latter.
on October 29,2013 | 09:15AM
NDN wrote:
I drove past the capitol this afternoon and I was blown away by the traditional marriage supporters. I can't remember when an issue brought out so much passion and conviction in people. I would say 90% was for traditional marriage and letting the people decide this issue. I think the legislators should take notice...i didn't see apathy at all on this issue. Also, I watched the hearing and I would say 95% was for traditional marriage and allowing the people to decide. THE LEGISLATORS REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! Hundreds and even thousands of years of tradition cannot be decided in 5 days. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!!!
on October 28,2013 | 09:25PM
innocentBystander wrote:
90% of southerners wanted to keep slavery too.
on October 29,2013 | 09:16AM
kanebear wrote:
What happened to separation of church and state? Love is love.
on October 28,2013 | 10:28PM
innocentBystander wrote:
Thank you.
on October 29,2013 | 09:16AM
kennysmith wrote:
i never got to vov last time, they told me i could't do it.
on October 28,2013 | 10:36PM
Skyler wrote:
Probably because you're a straw man.
on October 28,2013 | 11:40PM
inverse wrote:
The wizard can fix the straw man by giving him a brain and then he can vote.
on October 29,2013 | 03:52AM
4212richard wrote:
seems like what these churches call religious freedom is simply the right to discriminate, not a right to religious freedom. i think basic civil rights for all trumps their right to discriminate.
on October 28,2013 | 10:38PM
Galajr wrote:
Let the people decide.
on October 28,2013 | 10:41PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
The people did decide...on their representatives, who will vote the issues to the benefit of their constituents. That's how things work here.
on October 28,2013 | 11:14PM
salsacoquibx wrote:
scared to put it to a vote i see...Im sure you dont want the people to decided.
on October 29,2013 | 05:24AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
I'm not scared about the outcome of this particular bill. It doesn't materially affect me one way or the other. What does scare me is that there seems to be a lot more people who don't understand the process of bill passage, representative democracies, and everything that comes with it. Ignorance (either claimed or real) about the way things work are not justification for adding a constitutional amendment to a ballet. If you don't trust your representative to make the right choice, elect someone else. They were chosen and are paid (by us) to make tough decisions, so we should hold them to that.

Also, take a civics class.


on October 29,2013 | 10:29AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
*ballot not ballet.
on October 29,2013 | 02:08PM
Kuokoa wrote:
Of course. Even if testimony was overwhelmingly against SSM, they would still pass the bill! Why don't they just pass laws at the Federal level to allow benefits for reciprocal beneficiaries and civil unions?
on October 28,2013 | 10:52PM
Kuihao wrote:
Hey, that's a great idea, maybe you could suggest that to Speaker Boehner, I'm pretty sure his Republican caucus in the House would support it.
on October 29,2013 | 12:22AM
SY808 wrote:
5-2? I'm sure Slom was one of the 2 votes, but who was the 1 dissenting Democrat that voted against the bill? Who was the DINO that voted contrary to the Hawaii Democrat party's platform of equal rights? Who Ida the bigot who needs to be sanctioned?
on October 28,2013 | 11:05PM
Kuihao wrote:
Apparently Mike Gabbard is the name you're looking for. This is from the capitol website: The committee(s) on JDL recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED. The votes in JDL were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Hee, Shimabukuro, Galuteria, Ihara, Solomon; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 2 No(es): Gabbard, Slom
on October 29,2013 | 12:28AM
innocentBystander wrote:
big surprise
on October 29,2013 | 09:17AM
Jalynnie wrote:
Marriage is between a man and a woman, it's nature, it's how it's supposed to be. For all of you who think otherwise just be glad and thank God that your parents weren't gay because if they were you WOULD NOT be here today!!!!!
on October 28,2013 | 11:10PM
innocentBystander wrote:
...unless you were adopted.
on October 29,2013 | 09:18AM
csdhawaii wrote:
Don't listen to the naysayers. This is the right thing to do. We're on our way! One day we'll look back and shake our heads that this was ever such a contentious issue.
on October 28,2013 | 11:16PM
Coldwater wrote:
I WANT TO VOTE ON THIS!!! Hey wait didn't we voted on this??
on October 28,2013 | 11:28PM
blackmurano wrote:
We are all acountable to God. The same God who formed each of us in our Mother's womb. These Democrats were warned by testimonies and emails from Christians about redefining marriage that God of the Bible ordained marriage as a Covenant for one man and one woman. They made their vote and now must face God Almighty on Judgment Day. All their words spoken in their life and deeds are recorded in their book that will be open on Judgment day. You can read this in the book of Revelation in the Bible. Their book will be evidence of their unbelief of God Almighty. At this judgment day, there will be no second chance before they are toss in the lake of fire (hell) for eternity.
on October 29,2013 | 12:03AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Whoa, you're spooky.
on October 29,2013 | 09:19AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Also forbidden in the Bible, but conveniently overlooked by thumpers who attempt to shape the words in the Good Book to support their argument:

-Consumption of pork, and anything that comes out of the ocean that doesn't have scales or fins
-Tattoos and other forms of self-mutilation
-Getting remarried after divorce
-Gossip

See where bringing the Bible into the argument gets us? Religion and government need to stay as far away from each other as possible.


on October 29,2013 | 10:42AM
Pukele wrote:
Does this bill allow three people to get married? Does this bill allow a man to marry his daughter? People who prefer polygamy and Incest have rights.
on October 29,2013 | 12:17AM
blackmurano wrote:
Pukele, polygamy is next and it's right around the corner. There is also that organization (forgot the name) of Man loving young boys (sex). This organization marched in San Francisco with Nancy Pelosi in a car heading the parade of other homosexual organizations.
on October 29,2013 | 12:26AM
innocentBystander wrote:
Polygamy? Possibly. Incest? Not gonna happen.
on October 29,2013 | 09:21AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Your comment suggests that your view of homosexuality is that it's a crime. Not a crime defined in the Bible, but by law. You know a gay person. Chances are, you know more than one. Do you view them as criminals? Are you really selfish enough to deny them the benefits of marriage just to protect your fragile sensibilities?
on October 29,2013 | 12:25PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Oh lordy lordy the sky is falling. God is for sure going to smite us all.
on October 29,2013 | 04:42AM
Reade1 wrote:
Man marries Woman, Man marries Man, Woman marries Woman all have the word Man. The prefix Wo in the word Woman separates the physical difference between Man and Woman. To have a child intercourse between Man And Woman was educated to me in biology class in high school.. Now my grandson asked me; " grandpa when man marry man or woman marry woman how they make babies?" I said they have sex for love and pleasure but they cannot have babies through intercourse. Then he said how they have sex? I said when you get older the school books will change and educate you and show pictures like the pictures I learned from when I went school. My grandson thinking has made me think, "wow", life has change so fast since I was in high school 50 years ago. WE are the examples to our children. They live through us. What is going to be interesting when the sex education classes in schools are modified to include same sex, how it is done and the results? For I have witness the changes of life in Hawaii from everyone having their own house rich or poor, family gatherings was every sunday, no traffic, we all knew each other, They say progress is necessary. Okay now we have progress is life and the environment better? Life during my earlier years was simple with hard work and we all got along. The gay people had their own world and it never did bother us. They were good fun the "Night Club Glads" With the western influence again Hawaii changes. Life is important no matter how you live your life... respect, be humble, be kind, help and understand your neighbor.
on October 29,2013 | 04:51AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
... was educated to me in biology class in high school. Looks like your education did not work well.
on October 29,2013 | 06:21AM
Reade1 wrote:
Makapuu4...Yes my education was awesome. Worked well according to plan. I have a happy family, I am successful in life and finance. Pay my fair share of Federal and State Taxes. Retired with a great pension and social security pay check every month, have many friends, my children gave me beautiful grandchild and my parents gave us love, education, a house and enforced respect. How you live your life is your choice and it is not my business. Have a good day and make somebody happy today! I got to go to the bank deposit my Social Security check.
on October 29,2013 | 07:38AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Reade1 "... How you live your life is your choice and it is not my business. ..." That's all you needed to say (not that long winded nonsense about marriage).
on October 29,2013 | 08:47AM
Reade1 wrote:
Makapuu 4 ...Yes Sir Okole!!! "How you live your life is your choice and it is not my business."
on October 29,2013 | 09:11AM
salsacoquibx wrote:
Done deal people...these guys minds are made up. No matter how much there are protest, petitions,religious views, court battles, just vote them out off office on the next election. Thats all you can do for now, all falling on deaf ears.
on October 29,2013 | 05:21AM
mikethenovice wrote:
Typical buying of the votes again.
on October 29,2013 | 05:30AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
mikethenovice - You should buy some. Your paper route must be very lucrative.
on October 29,2013 | 07:13AM
HAKUAINA wrote:
goverment was never with God, that's why they can make any immoral laws they want, and if you believe in God things like this won't distract you from worship.
on October 29,2013 | 05:31AM
mikethenovice wrote:
Don't mix same gender marriage and God in the same sentence. Humans choose this, not God.
on October 29,2013 | 05:32AM
HanabataDays wrote:
God has no gender, so why should he-she-it care about trivialities like the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome? I guess if God was that paranoid about human choices, we wouldn't have been gifted with free will or the ability to love more than "the other half" of humanity.
on October 29,2013 | 06:55AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
mikethenovice - You just used the word, God and same gender marriage in the same sentence. Wait I did it too. I can't stop it.
on October 29,2013 | 07:12AM
coyote wrote:
The sad truth about all of this is IT'S ALL ABOUT $kALA$ !!
on October 29,2013 | 05:47AM
yhls wrote:
Looks like their minds were made up before they asked for public opinion. In addition to rail and billions of dollars of overdevelopment, this will be the crowning jewel of the Abercrombie administration.
on October 29,2013 | 06:03AM
Imagen wrote:
Concur!
on October 29,2013 | 09:37AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
In the rush to do the Governor's bidding, our legislators are overlooking a more common sense approach to eliminating any discrimination that might exist in our laws. They should determine which laws discriminate against any two adults who live together but who may not marry (grandparent-grandchild, siblings, first cousins, homosexuals, et al) and fix those laws. Instead they are rushing headlong into a law which would change the laws relating to marriage, an institution that is clearly defined as between one man and one woman. End discrimination instead of traditional marriage.
on October 29,2013 | 06:06AM
Venus1 wrote:
Marriage does not belong to the group that says it is for One Man and One Woman! It never has been that! Divorce redefined marriage. On the timeline of history 'marriage' has been defined and redefined. This law is just adding one more 'flavor' same sex! I say take marriage away from religion and make it a Civil Issue and let anyone who wants to add a 'religious' aspect, go to their church/temple and do it any way they wish! Keep religion out of marriage!
on October 29,2013 | 06:55AM
eoe wrote:
oh noes! the world has ended!
on October 29,2013 | 06:07AM
fluke wrote:
Alright! The senate did the right thing. Here is one for equality, the one ideal that makes this country great.
on October 29,2013 | 06:36AM
frontman wrote:
Vote all who voted for this bill out of office. They are NOT doing the will of the people but what obama wants them to do.
on October 29,2013 | 06:42AM
frontman wrote:
Vote All who voted for this bill out of office. They are NOT doing the will of the people but are lapdogs for obama
on October 29,2013 | 06:44AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
OK. Sure. Good luck with that.
on October 29,2013 | 07:01AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
It's going to be a fun week for the homophobes. They can prepare non-stop, knuckleheaded posts. Good fun.
on October 29,2013 | 06:47AM
seaborn wrote:
I agree, Makapuu4. Just read what Waterman2 is posting below. LOL
on October 29,2013 | 08:14AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
I have a solution for you anti-same sex marriage types. Get some funny hats and big posters. Hold some town meetings. (Be sure to be extra loud and obnoxious). Elect some marginal, single issue candidates. Threaten to shut down the state until you get your way. It works well at the federal level, it should work well here too.
on October 29,2013 | 06:55AM
Waterman2 wrote:
So much for the will of the people........I thought Washington was the stronghold of crooks, my mistake it is anyplace where the politicos get together.
on October 29,2013 | 07:16AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Waterman2 - Which people? You and your like-minded bunch of homophobes? Or, the people who elected their legislative representatives? You do realize that we have a representative democracy, don't you?
on October 29,2013 | 07:23AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Waterman2 - Let's do it. Let's have a town meeting at your house. We can wear some funny hats and bring some big posters. Let's see who can say the least while being the loudest. Then, we can elect some single-issue representatives who will threaten to shut down the government if we don't get our way. Let's do it.
on October 29,2013 | 07:27AM
seaborn wrote:
I don't know about that Waterman2, it seems they had the wisdom to realize this is an equal rights issue, and they approved it, for the will of the people!
on October 29,2013 | 08:16AM
9ronboz wrote:
Nonsense
on October 29,2013 | 07:29AM
soundofreason wrote:
PROMOTING a infectious lifestyle at society's expense.

MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available). CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

All for the whining of a sliver minority of the population.


on October 29,2013 | 07:49AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
soundwithoutreason - So same sex marriage will increase/decrease/change these numbers? Can you prove that? So this will somehow affect heterosexual marriages? Can you prove that? So cherry picking and misusing statistics allows soundwithoutreason to deny an entire group their rights? Interesting, but extraordinarily lame "argument."
on October 29,2013 | 07:59AM
seaborn wrote:
soundofreason, what does your post have ANYTHING to do with the same-sex marriage issue??!!
on October 29,2013 | 08:18AM
soundofreason wrote:
Shouldn't be same sexing. THAT'S what's infecting society.
on October 29,2013 | 08:05PM
Cricket_Amos wrote:
So called marriage equality is not about equal rights for gays, its about the destruction and theft of traditional marriage Logically, it would be the same thing as traditional marriage believers trying to force civil unions to be opposite sex only. It is not enough for homosexual marriage proponents to have their own form of marriage, they are desperate to destroy the the traditional form while they are at it. If they do not believe in traditional marriage why are they so obsessed with it? Why is not their own form of marriage enough? What is the source of their apparent hatred of anything that is not like them.
on October 29,2013 | 08:00AM
seaborn wrote:
What are you scared of, Cricket? Does two people in love and wanting to be married have you shaking in your shoes?
on October 29,2013 | 08:11AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Cricket_Anus - "... destruction and theft of traditional marriage" Huh. Do you read this junk before you post it?
on October 29,2013 | 08:14AM
Kuokoa wrote:
Like one of the testifiers said directely to Clayton Hee and I say too, I am a registered voter, I vote and I will remember the in justices of this issue. Hey, I don't even live in Hee's disctrict but I willingly will go and campaign against him no matter who runs against him. Same for all the others!
on October 29,2013 | 08:31AM
false wrote:
That is your right and for that matter be sure to do the same in YOUR district so you can say you made a difference there. We all should participate whether it be voting, forking over your hard earned cash, or campaigning. At the end you can say your participated.
on October 29,2013 | 09:13AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
ON Sunday there was a pro-SSM rally at the legislature and had a modest attendance. Last night's anti-SSM rally had thousands of people, a huge disparity. Of course the legislators were all home or at pau hana spots so they could ignore thier constituncies both pro and anti.

The one very clear message in all this is that a preponderance of residents want a chance to vote on this issue. Elected reps better be sensitive to this or it may bite them later.


on October 29,2013 | 08:33AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Maneki_Neko - Well there you go. Government by rally size. Who needs representative government when we have mobs?
on October 29,2013 | 08:51AM
false wrote:
Makes you wonder eh?
on October 29,2013 | 09:06AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
To the extent that rally size expresses the will of the politicians' constituencies it may be a valid metric. Assuming that our elected weasels have real nobility is a shaky premise. Assuming that politicians really represent the people who elected them is dicey, too. Shoot, assuming basic competency of some of those guys is a stretch. That's the point - this question demands a a vote of the people. Hee, Hanhano, McDermott, Oshiro, Souki,...you really want those guys making your decision for you? Bah.
on October 29,2013 | 09:51AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Maneki_Neko - How about to the extent that their vote totals expresses the will of the politicians' constituencies it may be a valid metric?
on October 29,2013 | 10:29AM
Reade1 wrote:
Makapuu4 "How you live your life is your choice and it is not my business"
on October 29,2013 | 09:13AM
innocentBystander wrote:
All you need is Love. ~The Beatles
on October 29,2013 | 09:27AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Unless I don't like how, and to whom, you express that Love ~The Homophobes.
on October 29,2013 | 10:30AM
CnDnM wrote:
Would those who oppse same sex marriage be willing to give up the federal benefits of marriage? Let everyone have a civil union, let the churches keep the word marriage, and let everyone lose out on the benefits. That being said, Washington probably needs to redefine these terms. And I'm sure that there are same sex couples that believe in God, but the Churches and various religions should be able to dictate their own policies.
on October 29,2013 | 09:34AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
CnDnM - Sure they would. Because, after all, their posts show that they are totally in favor of fairness and equality for all. Why do you even need to ask?
on October 29,2013 | 09:49AM
7yearTribulation wrote:
Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
on October 29,2013 | 09:40AM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
This is about equal rights. This is about making it right for a segment of our society that are not afforded the rights that many take for granted. Not too long ago, in the United States, blacks could not vote or marry outside of their race. Why? Because they were not considered our equals. And their intermarrying with whites was considered an abomination. Even religions put in their two cents' worth regarding blacks intermarrying with whites. People said that it should be put out to vote and sure enough they would vote against it. And that is what these religious organizations want, for it to be put out for vote just like the last time because they know that the "majority" rules regardless of what is right. In the current argument many religious folks claimed that if this became law, it would infringe on their right to their religious freedom. Now, how does this right infringe upon the rights of others to practice their belief? No one has come up with an answer that is valid. All the explanations have been illogical and shows how much these people stand on. Many use the bible to explain their stance that only a man and a woman can marry. But for those who cling to their interpretations of the bible, the interpretations have changed throughout history. For example, at one time the consumption of pork was considered a sin. Now, it is not even thought of as a sin. In the bible, women are to be subservient to their husband. Let's see how long that stance would last in every household in the United States. And let's not get into the "proof" that many keep demanding in these blogs as if there is "proof" that all the words in the bible are God's words. They stand as if their religious belief has been "proven" by a book that has been "proven" to be completely the word of God. And then they preach about love and how Jesus Christ was about not judging others. And at the same time condemn their children and disown them should they turn out to be "different". This is the legacy of the religion that many espouse to be the word of God. Now, why would a loving God create something and consider it a mistake when all of His creations are perfect? Why would He have the need to not only condemn but throw into damnation? I would hope that should my sons turn out "different" that they would be given the same rights as those who claim to be the majority. This is the United States of American. We were all equal and should be afforded the same rights to dignity and the right to pursue happiness. And if your religion is against that, it is un-American. As Dawn Webster put it succinctly, "A secular state has no basis for denying them the civil right of marriage that is available to everyone else."
on October 29,2013 | 09:54AM
7yearTribulation wrote:
Remember that Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
on October 29,2013 | 09:54AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
7yearTribulation - Can it be any worse than being subjected to your same post, over and over?
on October 29,2013 | 10:31AM
7yearTribulation wrote:
one day youll see if you dont repent
on October 29,2013 | 10:53AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
7yearTribulation - Oh. OK. But until then, can it be any worse than being subjected to your same post, over and over?
on October 29,2013 | 11:51AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
lol, Makapuu. We need to be friends.
on October 29,2013 | 12:38PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
This is about equal rights. This is about making it right for a segment of our society that are not afforded the rights that many take for granted. Not too long ago, in the United States, blacks could not vote or marry outside of their race. Why? Because they were not considered our equals. And their intermarrying with whites was considered an abomination. Even religions put in their two cents' worth regarding blacks intermarrying with whites. People said that it should be put out to vote and sure enough they would vote against it. And that is what these religious organizations want, for it to be put out for vote just like the last time because they know that the "majority" rules regardless of what is right. In the current argument many religious folks claimed that if this became law, it would infringe on their right to their religious freedom. Now, how does this right infringe upon the rights of others to practice their belief? No one has come up with an answer that is valid. All the explanations have been illogical and shows how much these people stand on. Many use the bible to explain their stance that only a man and a woman can marry. But for those who cling to their interpretations of the bible, the interpretations have changed throughout history. For example, at one time the consumption of pork was considered a sin. Now, it is not even thought of as a sin. In the bible, women are to be subservient to their husband. Let's see how long that stance would last in every household in the United States. And let's not get into the "proof" that many keep demanding in these blogs as if there is "proof" that all the words in the bible are God's words. They stand as if their religious belief has been "proven" by a book that has been "proven" to be completely the word of God. And then they preach about love and how Jesus Christ was about not judging others. And at the same time condemn their children and disown them should they turn out to be "different". This is the legacy of the religion that many espouse to be the word of God. Now, why would a loving God create something and consider it a mistake when all of His creations are perfect? Why would He have the need to not only condemn but throw into a fire? I would hope that should my sons turn out "different" that they would be given the same rights as those who claim to be the majority. This is the United States of American. We were all equal and should be afforded the same rights to dignity and the right to pursue happiness. And if your religion is against that, it is un-American. As Dawn Webster put it succinctly, "A secular state has no basis for denying them the civil right of marriage that is available to everyone else."
on October 29,2013 | 09:55AM
MichaelG wrote:
Thank you for your post. God is love, not the bible.
on October 29,2013 | 11:03AM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
Does that mean we are free to engage in any behavior we want and we should just turn a blind eye and just "love" each other? It's not just love. There must be guidelines and structure for even love to function to its fullest and in its best form. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy or un-disciplined to come up with and live by any type of structure in their lives. Hence the ridiculously permissive society we live in today.
on October 29,2013 | 03:12PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
nodaddy you wrote: "And then they preach about love and how Jesus Christ was about not judging others." The biggest example of this is the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did say "I do not condemn you." But he also added "go and sin no more." And that final statements gets us to where we are today and the debate that's been going on for centuries. What exactly is a sin? Clearly, he meant that there are some behaviors that he did not approve of. So those who go around saying that Jesus is love and it doesn't matter what you do are simply misinformed.
on October 29,2013 | 03:07PM
blackmurano wrote:
Hey nodaddynotthebelt I had a very long response to yours, but it looks like the pro-homosexual Star Advertiser who runs this blogs won't allow my response. So far I haven't seen my response popped up. But I did addressed every issue in your long winded response. Let me say this, God is not a changing God like you claim. He did say, "I am the same yesterday, the same today and the same forever."
on October 29,2013 | 03:59PM
glory_glory_man_utd wrote:
To all of you clueless people that think this bill is going to make a mockery of the "sanctity of traditional marriage" how do you guys feel about shows like The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Kim Kardashian and her sham 72 day wedding, etc....seems to me that society makes a mockery of traditional marriage already. This bill is about equality and acceptance for all. Get over yourselves...
on October 29,2013 | 09:57AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Great point. What gets me is our society has basically discarded the teachings of the Bible (at least with respect to how it governs our personal conduct), and yet we hold it up as the codex that must be upheld at all costs with respect to homosexuality.

Following the Word when it's convenient to your cause doesn't make you righteous. It makes you a hypocrite.


on October 29,2013 | 12:37PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
I agree, but I'd also flip this around. Society has evolved much of it's moral beliefs on bibilical and other religious principles, such as admonitions against murder, lying, stealing, etc., yet seem to ignore other behaviors such as sexual promiscuity (gay or straight), homosexual behavior, greed, pridefulness, etc. So yes, I would say that many pick and choose what they want to believe and follow.
on October 29,2013 | 03:03PM
lee1957 wrote:
I see the circus is in town.
on October 29,2013 | 11:17AM
retire wrote:
Apparently, this is a more important issue than the pot holes and poorly patched sections of roadway that I have been dodging for the past 30 years.
on October 29,2013 | 11:55AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
retire - It is for those who have been denied their rights. Apparently the issue of pot holes and poorly patched sections of roadway is not important that you would spend a few minutes to find out that much of this is a city & county issue.
on October 29,2013 | 12:18PM
retire wrote:
Typical pass the buck response, blame the other government entity, it's not our job. The purpose of government is to provide for the common defense and promote the common good. Well paved roads is a common good. Gay marriage is a proclivity.
on October 29,2013 | 12:52PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
retire - Great news for you then. In the next few weeks, same sex marriage will be more than a "proclivity," it will be a fact. And, you will be able to devote your full efforts to whining about pot holes and poorly patched sections of roadway.
on October 29,2013 | 01:13PM
retire wrote:
Makapuu4, we voted on this issue in 1996, traditional marriage was upheld. Now the will of the people is being run over by pandering politicians who have no regard for majority opinion, but will cast a vote "any way the wind blows". I am indeed tired of the lack of efforts put towards the maintenance of our roads, and the elected officials that represent their own views and disregard the decisions made by the people.
on October 29,2013 | 01:49PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Actually, check the amendment to the constitution that we voted on. It leaves the decision to the legislature. "Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." That means they also have the power not to.
on October 29,2013 | 02:15PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
That is very true, but it is certainly worded in a very nuanced way where the door is left ajar. I'd be interested to see how a court would rule if someone filed suit based on the wording itself.
on October 29,2013 | 04:06PM
FrankieT wrote:
From reading all the comments below, seems the comments have nothing to do with same sex marriage but more about government. If you are unhappy with the government, hey THEN MOVE
on October 29,2013 | 01:18PM
Eradication wrote:
Better yet, get out and vote. Less than 30% of Hawaii's population votes on a regular basis.
on October 29,2013 | 01:46PM
HLOEWEN wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on October 29,2013 | 01:23PM
Eradication wrote:
Please take your HATE someplace else. Your religion means nothing to most folks. Hell is a make believe place that is used to scare people in order to manipulate them. Your religion is shibai and your comments proof it. I respect anyone's belief system UNTIL it is filled with fear and hate. How sad it is for you and folks that think like you that your only method of debate on issues contrary to your religious beliefs is to fill your rhetoric with fear and condemnation. I feel very sad for you. If your Jesus did in fact come back He would be ashamed of you. And BTW, we live in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Tsunami's happen naturally and not because of some mumbo-jumbo belief system. Nice try.
on October 29,2013 | 01:44PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
I don't agree with his tsunami comment, but come on now. Be honest and say you respect anyone's belief system until it disagrees with something you strongly believe in. Fear and hate. You throw around those words liberally. The fact is you could also use the words caution and disapproval. Your rhetoric against religious folks who don't share you beliefs is just as hateful. I don't think you'll agree though, as you probably see them as cautious and disapproving.
on October 29,2013 | 04:11PM
Eradication wrote:
Equality for all...finally.
on October 29,2013 | 01:25PM
blackmurano wrote:
There is no provision for "equality" in God's Covenant of Marriage. Marriage is for one man and one woman and nothing else. For those who are calling for "Equality in Marriage" is not heeding the warning of changing God's Covenant of Marriage.
on October 29,2013 | 01:36PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Luckily for you, this bill has nothing to do with the Covenant of Marriage, but rather the marriage contract. Which is the legal document recognized by the state.

Did it ever occur to you that followers of non-Christian faiths also get married? Does your God preside over their union as well? Even if they don't acknowledge Him?


on October 29,2013 | 03:16PM
blackmurano wrote:
GooglyMoogly, God also created these non Christian faiths in their mother's womb. So they, too, are accountable for their words and deeds while HE gives them life on earth. Everyone, yes everyone is accountable to God.
on October 29,2013 | 03:52PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Your blind ignorance is laughable.
on October 29,2013 | 04:24PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
It is NOT equality for all. This about equality for gays and straight relationships only. There are many people out there with predilections that do not neatly fit into this very narrow description. Again, don't be disingenuous, or worse yet, dishonest. I don't see you or those who support gay equality fighting for those other groups. In fact, you folks seem to ignore them completely.
on October 29,2013 | 04:15PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
I'm not sure how you can define gay and straight relationships as "narrow". Every human-to-human relationship falls into one of these two categories. There may be deviations from the middle, but if you're getting your freak on with another human, they're either the same sex, or the opposite sex. I'd call that pretty broad.
on October 29,2013 | 04:53PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
Well at least someone had the guts to say they agreed with incestuous, polygamist, and child marriages.
on October 29,2013 | 08:04PM
Eradication wrote:
It's not "Gay Marriage". It's just marriage...equality.
on October 29,2013 | 01:36PM
BlueDolphin53 wrote:
Why stop at only gay and straight marriage? If you really think it is about marriage equality for all.
on October 29,2013 | 03:00PM
mitsuni wrote:
I am disgusted with the reporters on these articles, they continously cite that "hundreds" attended the Let the People Decide Rally last night.....someone needs to teach them how to count and to report accurately...there were thousands of people there in opposition to this hearing, approx 5 thousand at the peak. Those thousands were simply asking that a measure of this magnitude be addressed over the long term, that the concerns of all parties be addressed, and that the people's elected officials represent those that elected them and their will. My sole effort if this passes under these conditions will be to ensure that on election day 11/14/14 everyone remembers SB1 and casts their votes accordingly ensuring that you elect someone that has their constituents in their mind foremost and not a politically drive party objective.
on October 29,2013 | 01:48PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
mitsuni - I am with you. I hope all of your homophobe buddies, and you, try to vote on 11/14/14. Particularly, when the election is on 11/4/14. It must be great to be a single issue voter.
on October 29,2013 | 03:22PM
false wrote:
I have no problem with genuine Homosexual Unions/Marriage. I do have one provision. If you want a truly Homosexual Community then you should be willing to forego any benefit of a Heterosexual Community or Lifestyle based on your character and integrity demonstrated as truly believing Homosexuality is the natural and the normal way of life. That would be the true test of whether or not those who promote the "Gay or Homosexual Lifestyle" are sincere about their life preferences or whether it's an attempt by the "Tail Wagging the Dog" to villify and ridicule and marginalize those who stand on their religious beliefs and standards of right and wrong. Someone addressed HItler and "His Germany". Go back and analyze the statements made in Hitler's Germany about Jews (Gypsies and Christians as well). Then analyze the statements made by the proponents of the Homosexual Lifestyle regarding Christians and/or anyone else who disagrees with them. You'd be amazed at the similiarities. NO, I don't think this virulent rhetoric is persecution of Christians. In other countries, Christians are Jailed, sentenced to death and in some instances killed in the streets if they profess a belief in Christ. That's persecution. This is inconvenience. By the way, anybody stop to think, if my parents had been proponents of the Homosexual Lifestyle as normal, I wouldn't be here, nor would anyone else.
on October 29,2013 | 02:45PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
false - With that big steamy pile of a post, I wish your "parents had been proponents of the Homosexual Lifestyle as normal ..."
on October 29,2013 | 03:18PM
oiwi808 wrote:
Makapuu4 is afraid of a vote
on October 29,2013 | 03:45PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
And oiwi808 is full of regret that they didn't vote in the general election, and whoever his/her representative is will probably vote to pass the bill.

But I'm not here to mock, tease, or berate you for feeling the way you do. I'm here to tell you that if this bill passes, everything will be ok. In fact, you'll wake up the next morning, and things really won't be much different for you than they were the day before. The gay/lesbian people in your life might be a little happier, or not. The hetero people in your life might be a little happier, or not. Life will go on, but that's the whole point...this bill actually has zero impact on you as a heterosexual.


on October 29,2013 | 04:20PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Where can we get this list of "heterosexual benefits" you speak of? And please tell us what makes "genuine homosexual marriage" different from the other kinds. Is there some sort of stamp? A certificate from the Franklin Mint? I'm sorry if this is the first time you're hearing this, but you can be a proponent of something without being a practitioner of it. Take mammograms, for example.

I don't know if I've read something where the author opens with an affirmative and then spends the entire text contradicting his first sentence. Just curious, when you throw around terms like "homosexual community", you're picturing a large pavilion where all the homosexual people congregate to engage in homosexual sex, aren't you?


on October 29,2013 | 04:03PM