Quantcast
  

Sunday, April 20, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 209 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Judge says he will hear challenge if Hawaii legalizes gay marriage

By Star-Advertiser staff

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 10:54 a.m. HST, Nov 07, 2013


Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto today rejected a request by a state House Republican for a temporary restraining order to prevent Gov. Neil Abercrombie from signing a marriage equality law and the state from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

But Sakamoto said he would hear a challenge if the state Legislature passes and Abercrombie signs a law allowing gay marriage.

Sakamoto cited the unique context of a 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to heterosexual couples. The judge acknowledged that many voters might have thought at the time that the vote was narrowly meant to prohibit same-sex marriage, not give the Legislature the power to define marriage in other ways.

Sakamoto said the question is whether it is unconstitutional, because of the 1998 vote, for the Legislature to expand marriage beyond heterosexual couples.

State Rep. Bob McDermott, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, and others have filed a lawsuit to challenge the state's ability to issue marriage licenses if a marriage equality bill becomes law after a special session.

Under a bill pending before the House for a vote on Friday, gay couples could marry as soon as Dec. 2.

McDermott said the public should vote again on whether to preserve traditional marriage.

"We will be back the moment it is signed and challenge the constitutionality," McDermott said after the judge's ruling today.

McDermott said that what voters were told and what they thought they voted on in 1998 "trumps all the lawyer fancy footwork, and that's what we're going to try and get at."

State Attorney General David Louie said the Legislature has the clear authority to approve same-sex marriage independent of the 1998 constitutional amendment.

"I firmly believe that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to do this, the Legislature has the constitutional power to do this, and that there won't be a problem," Louie told reporters.

But Louie also said that the legislative history before the 1998 vote clearly shows that the Legislature left open the possibility that it would consider same-sex marriage in the future, as lawmakers are doing now in special session.

The 1998 constitutional amendment was in response to a state Supreme Court ruling in 1993 that held that denying gay couples marriage licenses was a violation of equal protection under the state Constitution.

The 1998 vote essentially took the power from the courts and transferred it to the Legislature by ratification of the constitutional amendment.

Sakamoto cited the separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive branches of government for denying the temporary restraining order.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 209 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(209)
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.
allie wrote:
Agree and I predicted this. It was a bad bill pressured into passage by outside money. As many Hawaiians were saying at the capitol last night, this entire thing is not very native Hawaiian.
on November 7,2013 | 09:44AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
allie - "... not very native Hawaiian." Neither are you give it a rest.
on November 7,2013 | 09:52AM
allie wrote:
I am. Now calm down. Geesh.
on November 7,2013 | 10:51AM
copperwire9 wrote:
You're not. Though what you call 'truth' varies from moment to moment.
on November 7,2013 | 12:55PM
allie wrote:
truth may have to be approached..obliquely. You know..it is the old Emily Dickinson quote: "tell all the truth but tell it slant..."
on November 7,2013 | 01:01PM
hanalei395 wrote:
allie - "I am". ........Of course. You're an Indian.
on November 7,2013 | 01:13PM
allie wrote:
I am Mandan..indigenous people of north America.
on November 7,2013 | 01:23PM
hanalei395 wrote:
In other words, an Indian ....according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
on November 7,2013 | 02:06PM
allie wrote:
Ummm Mandans do not like that term. It comes from the mistaken view of Columbus and other European explorers that we were from the Indus River. Confusion with Asia. We are a tribal native American people. We migrated here thousands of years ago.
on November 7,2013 | 02:10PM
hanalei395 wrote:
OK ....Indian.
on November 7,2013 | 02:48PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
hey prince, are you and makapiss4 related? cuz you sound the same.
on November 7,2013 | 05:18PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Allie - Deep down you're really black and your people immigrated out of Africa.
on November 7,2013 | 09:39PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
No people are indigenous to North America, any and all people immigrated there. .... or didn't they teach you that in college?
on November 7,2013 | 07:05PM
808Warriors wrote:
Allie - now you're a native Hawaiian? I thought you were a American Indian?
on November 7,2013 | 02:58PM
allie wrote:
Native American...
on November 7,2013 | 03:04PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Indian squaw.
on November 7,2013 | 03:18PM
2NDC wrote:
"How"?
on November 7,2013 | 08:44PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
“The legislature further finds that the question of whether or not the State should issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. This constitutional measure is thus designed to confirm that the legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and to ensure that the legislature will remain open to the petitions of those who seek a change in the marriage laws, and that such petitioners can be considered on an equal basis with those who oppose a change in our current marriage statutes.”
on November 7,2013 | 09:54AM
AmbienDaze wrote:
hey, makapiss4, shut the front door already. you got old real quick.
on November 7,2013 | 05:20PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze - Shut the backdoor.
on November 7,2013 | 06:07PM
waikane75 wrote:
Are you kidding? Discrimination is not very Hawaiian. And who do you think is bankrolling the opposition? Local money? Big churches are supporting the opposition effort and I wouldn't be suprised if some of these reps are on the payroll...Fale?
on November 7,2013 | 10:06AM
serious wrote:
On the Today show this morning, Matt and Al were given prostrate tests---I am sure all the gays tuned it!!! Since the D's want mixed marriages, endorsed by the national D committee and Obama, it will be the law!!
on November 7,2013 | 10:21AM
bumba wrote:
Hey ignorant - it's prostate, not prostrate. Lol,
on November 7,2013 | 10:28AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Maybe serious meant they were tested to see if they could lay down.
on November 7,2013 | 10:35AM
AmbienDaze wrote:
yo makapiss4, you been dissing posters all this time. shut the front door already.
on November 7,2013 | 05:21PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze - Shut the backdoor.
on November 7,2013 | 06:07PM
allie wrote:
giggle...
on November 7,2013 | 10:51AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Apparently serious serious did.
on November 7,2013 | 10:34AM
AmbienDaze wrote:
yo, makapiss4, you are all f'd up.
on November 7,2013 | 05:21PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
At least I am not AszholeCraze. That's really f'd up.
on November 7,2013 | 06:08PM
allie wrote:
yuck
on November 7,2013 | 01:01PM
walaau808 wrote:
Why you singling out Fale? In what way is the church supporting him? Facts only, not assumptions please...
on November 7,2013 | 11:27AM
kentfonoimoana wrote:
A quick check of Mr. Fale's past political contributions. Most of his funds came from private donors who happen to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints His largest donation came from President Steven Wheelwright President of BYU Hawaii and his wife who both gave the maximum (in multiple elections). Steven Wheelwright has donated in excess of $45,000 in opposition to SSM issues nationally..
on November 7,2013 | 01:14PM
allie wrote:
Oh come..it is quintessentially Hawaiian.
on November 7,2013 | 01:01PM
Anonymous wrote:
one more month until you "graduate" and leave yet i still think you will continue to troll this site
on November 7,2013 | 10:32AM
allie wrote:
I do where I am wanted..and needed,,,and paid quite frankly
on November 7,2013 | 10:52AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
allie - I do where I am wanted [not here] ..and needed [not here] ,,,and paid quite frankly [unlikely]
on November 7,2013 | 11:27AM
allie wrote:
ummmm...you may not yet know what you need...but what you need has been vouchsafed to you...by those who know..and care.
on November 7,2013 | 01:02PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:22PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:08PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Your comments are often so outrageous, I can really believe that SA is paying you to keep up interest in their **itty paper. Honolulu advertiser was way better than what we got now.
on November 7,2013 | 07:13PM
username_required wrote:
The bill in question will be HB117 (1997) and Article 1, Sect. 23 of the Constitution. This is what you mean, right?
on November 7,2013 | 11:14AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
“The legislature further finds that the question of whether or not the State should issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. This constitutional measure is thus designed to confirm that the legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and to ensure that the legislature will remain open to the petitions of those who seek a change in the marriage laws, and that such petitioners can be considered on an equal basis with those who oppose a change in our current marriage statutes.”
on November 7,2013 | 09:52AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
For those of you who are interested, the above represents the legislative intent of H.B. No. 117, Regular Session 1997 which led to the 1998 Amendment to the Hawaii Constitution. For those of you that want to believe that the court will overturn SSM, or that the public needs to vote to change the amendment, or that the legislature has no right to pass SSM, you are in for a real surprise. The court will look at legislative intent and SSM will be upheld.
on November 7,2013 | 09:54AM
lwandcah wrote:
While it may very well have represented "the legislative intent", it clearly did not/ does not represent the peoples intent.
on November 7,2013 | 10:10AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
lwandcah - It did and does. That is the law. People elected representatives to create laws. Furthermore, people approved the amendment based on this law. You can't possibly know people's intent. And, I don't think there is anything in law about people's intent.
on November 7,2013 | 10:21AM
walaau808 wrote:
Yet you know what the legislative intent is? How is that?
on November 7,2013 | 11:29AM
copperwire9 wrote:
As Makapuu4 has posted: “The legislature further finds that the question of whether or not the State should issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. This constitutional measure is thus designed to confirm that the legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and to ensure that the legislature will remain open to the petitions of those who seek a change in the marriage laws, and that such petitioners can be considered on an equal basis with those who oppose a change in our current marriage statutes.”
on November 7,2013 | 12:58PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
walaau808 - It's in the bill (H.B. No. 117, Regular Session 1997). Do you know anything about the legislative process?
on November 7,2013 | 01:14PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4.
on November 7,2013 | 05:23PM
Mythman wrote:
Good, next let's have the legislature enact a Referendum Law so this assumption that once you are elected you can pass any law your supporters convince you to pass is equalized separately by a Referendum of the people in which they can dis-elect you or overturn any such law, if they choose to do so. How about it? A Referendum Law modeled on California or Colorado?
on November 7,2013 | 12:41PM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
Actually there is a Supreme Court ruling that says what the people thought they were voting on with a constitutional amendment has precedence over all deceptive and oblique legislative contortions.
on November 7,2013 | 12:57PM
kiragirl wrote:
You're correct. The word INTENT I will prevail.
on November 7,2013 | 06:12PM
allie wrote:
I have hiked to your lighthouse. I fear you have not. A man who does not know his own lighthouse nurses an imposing vacuum.
on November 7,2013 | 01:26PM
Anonymous wrote:
w t f
on November 7,2013 | 02:35PM
false wrote:
Sorry, that doesn't matter here. The bill was passed as it reads.
on November 7,2013 | 10:24AM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
The voters were not informed of the "legislative intent" of HB 117, it wasn't on the ballot, or in the instructions issued by the state Office of Elections. The voters were given a plainly worded statement that implied they were voting up or down on same-sex marriage. The courts WILL be hearing this case if SB-1 makes it into law, as regards the constitutionality of all the actions of the state legislature in both 1998 and 2013.
on November 7,2013 | 12:54PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
The question that appeared on the ballot for voters was: Shall the Constitution of the state of Hawaii be amended to specify that the Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?
on November 7,2013 | 01:18PM
Matsu wrote:
And the voters voted "Yes" that marriage should be reserved to opposite-sex couples. It was clearly a word game hoping to get people to vote for something opposite of what they were voting for. It should have been written- should marriage be limited to same-sex couples, but then it would be unambiguous, and the ruling class, would not be able to bend the rules. There is s reason they write this ballot issues the way they do, and it is NOT to be clear. The left loves twisting words. Example: Pre-abortion, becomes pro-choice, it sounds so much nicer.
on November 7,2013 | 02:42PM
pakeheat wrote:
As Mr. Clayton Hee said, there is a clause or loophole, LOL.
on November 7,2013 | 03:43PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:23PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:06PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.
on November 7,2013 | 01:36PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Hey we got ourselves a real Wikipedia cowboy. Word for word plagiarism. No attribution, though.
on November 7,2013 | 01:52PM
allie wrote:
yikes!
on November 7,2013 | 02:12PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Maneki_Neko - It beats making up the "facts" or thumping a bible.
on November 7,2013 | 06:28PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:23PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:06PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
you 2 need help ... mental health help that is.
on November 7,2013 | 07:17PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I don't know why, the Hawaii and US supreme courts have both ruled in favor of SSM. Do think that's going to change?
on November 7,2013 | 07:16PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
“The legislature further finds that the question of whether or not the State should issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. This constitutional measure is thus designed to confirm that the legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and to ensure that the legislature will remain open to the petitions of those who seek a change in the marriage laws, and that such petitioners can be considered on an equal basis with those who oppose a change in our current marriage statutes.”
on November 7,2013 | 09:54AM
localguy wrote:
So many weak minded individuals in the Nei, judges, Bob McDermott, and others of the older, senile generation who are still trying to stay relevant in this fast changing world. Sad to say the world has already passed them by, left them light years behind in the dust. They still think the world is the one they grew up in, it is not. They need to either retire and do what they do best, what ever that is, and let the newer generation handle it. Everything will be just find. We do not need their mumbo jumbo, dysfunction in our world. Don't let the door hit you.............
on November 7,2013 | 10:01AM
walaau808 wrote:
There is much to be learned from the kupuna. Problem is the younger generations always think they know it all - and they don't! Of course the world changes, but that isn't always for the best, and you know it!
on November 7,2013 | 11:38AM
Matsu wrote:
The 20th Century brought us all these great new fangled ideas such as socialism, communism, and Marxism. New ideas are not always a good thing. To be honest, Progressivism is NOT a new idea; it is just a newer name for all this other “isms” listed above. Liberals just keep trying to rehash their old ideas under new titles, and hope it works out better than the last time.
on November 7,2013 | 02:49PM
Mythman wrote:
Oh, yes, let the younger generation handle everything because they are so much smarter because they have I Phones and tweet. Narcissists.
on November 7,2013 | 12:43PM
prest1948 wrote:
So, have you put your parents and grandparents aunties, and uncles on a raft and floated them into the great Pacific Ocean? When people think the way you do I can understand why there is so much rudeness in the world today. Shame on you, and do you really think "Everything will be find?"
on November 7,2013 | 01:27PM
Matsu wrote:
localguy- Just because people have different opionions does not mean they are weak-minded. Stop with the Alinsky tactics.
on November 7,2013 | 02:44PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
That's just it ... the world has changed but many members of the older generation refuse to see or accept this change. They'll be gone soon enough.
on November 7,2013 | 07:19PM
Matsu wrote:
What they don't tell you is that the Civil Union law passed earlier ALREADY provides gays the full privileges of straight married couples. They make it sound as if this is an equal rights issue, when it is not. The problem I see is that they start talking about "everyone" deserving the same rights. If it is worded like that in the law, then what will stop pedophiles or any number of unique groups from claiming the same full rights? Don't doubt that this law will not end here. This is the left's attempt to further break down the family unit one small step at a time. Progressives want us all to depend on the Gov't, and don't like strong independent families.
on November 7,2013 | 10:01AM
sooregonian wrote:
Well said Matsu san.
on November 7,2013 | 10:08AM
lwandcah wrote:
Can someone please explain what "rights are being denied" that are not provided for in the Civil Union Law?
on November 7,2013 | 10:13AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
lwandcah - I am pretty sure that no one can explain this to you. The average rock has better comprehension.
on November 7,2013 | 10:24AM
false wrote:
makapuu4: You sound irritated. Didn't use enough KY?
on November 7,2013 | 11:52AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
false - Not like you. Rumor is it's like throwing a wiener down a hallway.
on November 7,2013 | 01:23PM
Anonymous wrote:
ha ha ha nice one
on November 7,2013 | 02:36PM
false wrote:
makapuu4: Sorry queenie I'm straight Your antivirals must be acting up
on November 7,2013 | 02:49PM
pakeheat wrote:
Yikes!
on November 7,2013 | 03:51PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:24PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:06PM
lee1957 wrote:
Rights and benefits granted at the Federal level are not recognized by civil unions, only SSM.
on November 7,2013 | 10:34AM
lwandcah wrote:
lee1957 - Thank you. It is refreshing to get a rational response from a fellow reader.
on November 7,2013 | 11:04AM
boshio wrote:
This is why this bill is not a equal rights bill, but, just a privilege right to equal marriage benefits from both the Feds and State. I wonder if it will cause an increase in taxes and insurance premiums for all people in Hawaii to support this group.
on November 7,2013 | 11:42AM
EightOEight wrote:
You mean the way the LGBT community has been "supporting" heterosexuals with their federal and state tax dollars all this time, boshio?
on November 7,2013 | 02:43PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
boshio?
on November 7,2013 | 04:52PM
8082062424 wrote:
they only get benefits from the state of Hawaii not from the federal government .
on November 7,2013 | 01:07PM
Imagen wrote:
Federal benefits and entitlements which only applied to married couples. The operative word here is "married" and our State defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
on November 7,2013 | 01:18PM
waikane75 wrote:
Same sex couples are strong independent families. And why compare gay rights to pedophiles who are criminals? Thats extreme.
on November 7,2013 | 10:16AM
EightOEight wrote:
Not only extreme, but ignorant and juvenile.
on November 7,2013 | 02:45PM
nonpolitic wrote:
You are incorrect in stating that civil unions "provides gays with the full privileges of straight married couples". Civil union partners cannot currently avail themselves of federal tax benefits currently reserved for straight married couples. Please read the US supreme courts Windsor case and the follow-up IRS tax guidance issued in the wake of the court decision.
on November 7,2013 | 10:17AM
palolosunrise wrote:
I read it and it also says that if you're married in a state that grants SSM those federal benefits go with you no matter what state you live in, even if that state does not allow SSM. That said, what's the need for SSM in Hawaii when civil unions already cover state benefits?
on November 7,2013 | 04:47PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Matsu - "... strong independent families." You mean like the ones with a 50% divorce rate or the ones where the mother and father don't get married? Your statements about pedophiles just display your ignorance. But, I guess that's typical for you. That probably happens every time you talk or post.
on November 7,2013 | 10:26AM
Matsu wrote:
In California they are already trying to pass a law that would allow students who "think" they may be the opposite sexual orientation the right to use the opposite sex's rest rooms and locker rooms. Yep, you are right Makapuu4, the pedophile thing could "Never" happen. If the law provides for "everyone" to have equal marriage rights, explain how that does NOT open the door. The American Psychiatric Association is already been caught trying to validate pedophilia as normal. This is standard leftist policy, slowly break down moral fabric one step at a time, until we sit here and say, how did we get here?
on November 7,2013 | 10:44AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
What's with the pedophile thing you keep talking about? How on earth does SSM equate to or "open the door" to pedophilia? Pedophilia is a crime, are you suggesting that gay marriage is a crime or should be? You have a right to live your life the way you want and believe what you believe ... but so do they.
on November 7,2013 | 08:59PM
Matsu wrote:
Liberalism is behind much of the high divorce rate. Narcissists have a tough time committing to anything but themselves, and the left loves to preach, whatever makes you feel good, so instead of sucking it up during tough times, just give up and try again. Look how liberalism and left-policies have destroyed the black community. Over 75% of black children are born out of wedlock, some caused by a welfare program that penalizes you for being married. Typical left- create a problem through their policies, then demand changes in laws to correct the problem- Example, taking sports out of recess, and making competition a bad thing, then blaming the food industry for the obesity. Our kids are fat because they sit on their butts all day,
on November 7,2013 | 02:58PM
pakeheat wrote:
Outstanding Matsu
on November 7,2013 | 03:52PM
MKN wrote:
@Matsu: Not exactly. There are a lot of things under the Civil Union law that make it not equal to Marriage. For instance, any federal benefits that a married person would be eligible for would not apply for those under a state Civil Unions law (e.g. Social Security, Veterans Benefit, etc.) That's why it's important that they call it Marriage instead of Civil Unions. If you believe that a popular vote is fair, tell that to the interracial couples that were unable to get married 60 years ago in many states on the mainland. Had a popular vote been the way to decide things in those states, interracial couples may not have been able to get married up to this day. The same arguments that you're making were the same excuses that were being made to justify the positions that people had against interracial marriages.
on November 7,2013 | 10:39AM
Nocturnal wrote:
How do you compare homosexual adult couples who want to get married to pedophiles who would want to marry young children? Two consenting adults who want to get married = no problem. Pedophile adult wanting to get married to a young child = stupid and obviously not common sense.
on November 7,2013 | 10:51AM
TheFarm wrote:
*yawn* Give Bob McDermott his bottle and a clean diaper, heʻs fussing again!
on November 7,2013 | 10:22AM
monkseal2 wrote:
I am ashamed to live in McDermott's district. I remember the days when Ewa Beach was a simple little plantation town. Now we have a misinformed person like Mr. McDermott in this "modern" era. Did you see his questioning of Dr. Hamer? He was embarrassing and should have kept his mouth shut because he looked bad afterwards. These anti-marriage folk come from a place of hatred.
on November 7,2013 | 10:33AM
Matsu wrote:
You do know that the people of Hawaii voted by a huge margin NOT to allow same sex marriage, then the Governor and his cronies, switched the wording from what the ballot said. Try listening to what McDermitt is actually arguing. The PEOPLE of the State have voted, and our voice is being trashed.
on November 7,2013 | 10:48AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Matsu - Wrong again. “The legislature further finds that the question of whether or not the State should issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. This constitutional measure is thus designed to confirm that the legislature has the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and to ensure that the legislature will remain open to the petitions of those who seek a change in the marriage laws, and that such petitioners can be considered on an equal basis with those who oppose a change in our current marriage statutes.” For those of you who are interested, this represents the legislative intent of H.B. No. 117, Regular Session 1997 which led to the 1998 Amendment to the Hawaii Constitution. For those of you that want to believe that the court will overturn SSM, or that the public needs to vote to change the amendment, or that the legislature has no right to pass SSM, you are in for a real surprise. The court will look at legislative intent and SSM will be upheld.
on November 7,2013 | 10:54AM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:25PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:05PM
walaau808 wrote:
You believe Hamer? By his own admission, he was wrong and falsified information.
on November 7,2013 | 11:34AM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
Hamer was completely debunked in 1998.
on November 7,2013 | 01:00PM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
We have received hundreds of messages from people in the Ewa District thanking Rep. McDermott for standing up for people...and then we have you.
on November 7,2013 | 01:04PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Keith_Rollman - There's that many crazy people in the Ewa District? Scary.
on November 7,2013 | 01:12PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:25PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:05PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I don't think the majority of people are anti SSM anymore, maybe in 1998 but not today. But then you all know that already don't you.
on November 7,2013 | 09:03PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
As expected right? The judge can't issue the TRO now but once the bill is in place, there would be a cause of action. Of course someone would challenge the law, that was never in doubt. My takeaway on this - No story here, judge acted properly, a legal challenge will be filed as expected after the bill becomes law, take it from there.
on November 7,2013 | 10:28AM
saveparadise wrote:
Pooh on politicians that want to force their own agenda upon all and pooh on the archaiach judiciary system that allows criminals to roam free after 25 convictions. If this is good for all then the people should decide. I have no problem accepting whatever the voters decide. Put it to a vote and put it to rest.
on November 7,2013 | 10:30AM
ghstar wrote:
Vote A.B.M -- AnyBody but McDermott in the next election. He antics in special session were an embarrassment.
on November 7,2013 | 10:32AM
Matsu wrote:
Why, because he doesn't just blindly follow those in total control?
on November 7,2013 | 10:49AM
Anonymous wrote:
no he's just blind
on November 7,2013 | 02:39PM
pakeheat wrote:
better than being deaf?
on November 7,2013 | 03:53PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
false - In a court case legislative intent means a lot. Look it up.
on November 7,2013 | 10:36AM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:25PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:05PM
ejkorvette wrote:
Same sex marriage is an Abomination, an Affront to God.
on November 7,2013 | 10:46AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
ejkorvette is an Abomination, an Affront to God.
on November 7,2013 | 11:25AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Anyone who believes that SSM is an abomination is entitled to his beliefs in the same way as you, Makapuu4 believes that SSM is not.

Do you think that going into your tantrum makes any difference?
on November 7,2013 | 01:48PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
live the way you want but don't force everyone else to join you
on November 7,2013 | 09:09PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:26PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:05PM
allie wrote:
I shudder when I realize how we disappoint God. Many mock him but their time grows nigh....
on November 7,2013 | 01:03PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
allie - Thank you blackmumbojumbo.
on November 7,2013 | 01:11PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Exclude others and only speak for yourself, allie and not use the word we
on November 7,2013 | 01:50PM
allie wrote:
I speak for the way things are...
on November 7,2013 | 02:12PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
No worries, one will force you to participate in one.
on November 7,2013 | 09:08PM
ejkorvette wrote:
Gay marriage, Same sex marriage is an Abomination, as well as an Affront to God, Mocking him. Woe to all the creatures that approve of such perverse, sickening, and devil like activities.
on November 7,2013 | 10:52AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
"Sakamoto cited the unique context of a 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to heterosexual couples. The judge acknowledged that many voters might have thought at the time that the vote was narrowly meant to prohibit same-sex marriage, not give the Legislature the power to define marriage in other ways." He can't tell any better than anyone else what the voters thought. He can, however, determine what the legislative intent was with respect to the law that led to the amendment.
on November 7,2013 | 10:52AM
Kuniarr wrote:
What exactly is this "law that led to the amendment" you were talking about Makapuu4? What law? An amendment to the constitution is not an amendment to a law. The Constitution is distinct and separate from any and all laws which by the way has to abide by the provisions of the Constitution.
on November 7,2013 | 01:53PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Kuniarr - How do you "think" the amendment got on the ballot? The constitutional amendment was proposed to the electorate by the legislature by H.B. No. 117, S.D. 1, C.D. 1, "A Bill for an Act Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Relating to Marriage." Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 1, 19th Hawaii Leg. Reg. Sess., 1997 Haw. Sess. Laws 1246-7 (Appendix A-1 hereto). H.B. No. 117, S.D. 1, C.D. 1 (a copy of which is attached as part of Appendix A-1 hereto), provided that "[t]his amendment shall take effect upon compliance with article XVII, section 3 [Amendments Proposed by Legislature] of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii."
on November 7,2013 | 02:13PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:26PM
konag43 wrote:
thank you State Rep. Bob McDermott, for sticking up for the rights of the people who appose same sex marriage. makapuu you give it a rest . no money is involved with the opposition on same sex marriage except that people took from their prescious time to stand in line to give testamony to appose the bill. the big money came from all the rich homesexuals that have moved into hawaii over the past 20 years linning the pockets of the legislators. localboy thats why we oldies are still around becasue you guys have no sence of right from wrong and continue to make mistakes that destroy the would as it should be not as you want it to be. things may change and the bill go into effect by your will suffer for your wrong choices and people like you will make the inocent suffer along with you.
on November 7,2013 | 11:03AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
The National Organization for Marriage paid for those anti-marriage commercials. You might want find out who funds them before you claim "no money is involved with the opposition on same sex marriage". There was mainland money on BOTH sides of this issue. So what? What we do here has implications nationwide... and I for one don't have a problem with mainland groups pumping money into our local economy. It's done ALL the time with virtually every type of campaign for virtually every issue.
on November 7,2013 | 11:37AM
boshio wrote:
Bring on the opposition's law suits, and hope they win.
on November 7,2013 | 11:46AM
false wrote:
Bob you wasting you time and money. You'll see. Now don't be too disappointed when the court rules against you.
on November 7,2013 | 12:10PM
allie wrote:
agree...this bad bill needs to be thrown out by the courts. It was too flawed...too rushed.
on November 7,2013 | 01:04PM
CloudForest wrote:
At that time, when this becomes the next courtroom event of the decade, it will still be impossible for the delegates from Sodom and Gomorrah to attend due to ever increasing bad weather - the hail and brimstone continues to smolder, making travel unlikely.
on November 7,2013 | 11:15AM
Makapuu4 wrote:
CloudForest - Lame the first 101 times. Still lame.
on November 7,2013 | 01:10PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:26PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
konag43 - "... no money is involved with the opposition on same sex marriage ..." How could you possibly know that? Maybe you didn't see the many ads opposed. "... the big money came from all the rich homesexuals that have moved into hawaii over the past 20 years linning the pockets of the legislators ..." Again, full of BS and with no evidence.
on November 7,2013 | 11:24AM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:27PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:04PM
PokeStop wrote:
Politicians who voted in favor of this bill need to be voted out in the next election! Send them back to the rank and file of society. Steer the qweers (please don't censor!) in another direction!
on November 7,2013 | 11:28AM
boshio wrote:
Bring on all of the opposition's law suits and hope they win.
on November 7,2013 | 11:55AM
seaborn wrote:
Yep, vote out the politicians who believe in equal rights for everyone, and vote in the ones who promote fear and hate. THAT is sensible.
on November 7,2013 | 12:26PM
Mythman wrote:
Who said this, David Louie: "The 1998 vote essentially took the power from the courts and transferred it to the Legislature by ratification of the constitutional amendment." Powers are not transferred.
on November 7,2013 | 12:37PM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
Right now AG Louie is telling the Governor..."we have a problem."
on November 7,2013 | 01:05PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Keith_Rollman - I doubt that.
on November 7,2013 | 01:09PM
Keith_Rollman wrote:
If he isn't he's not doing his job very well.
on November 7,2013 | 01:21PM
Mikehono wrote:
Just can't stomach know it alls like Rollman.
on November 7,2013 | 06:32PM
8082062424 wrote:
I think it may him saying we may have a problem
on November 7,2013 | 02:46PM
kailuanokaoi wrote:
Next Adam Sandler movie - Chuck and Larry move to Hawaii! HaHa! Those who saw the Chuck and Larry movie will get a giggle :) Seriously - I think people will abuse this for benefits. Polygamy next...hey...love is love right? How can you deny one orientation group over another?
on November 7,2013 | 12:44PM
false wrote:
And the boogie man will get all of us. LOL
on November 7,2013 | 01:57PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
consenting adults? why not?
on November 7,2013 | 09:17PM
RandolphW wrote:
If everything is so simple, so black and white, then why has it taken the legislature so very long, 15 years, to figure everything out? 15 years.....................really. Who was left holding the proverbial paper bag?
on November 7,2013 | 12:52PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Excellent. Now, prepare to go and argue in court. There are lots of testimony from the citizens of Hawaii with very strong cases opposing homosexual marriage in Hawaii.
on November 7,2013 | 01:15PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
kuroiwaj - The courts looks at laws not people's testimony. The testimony will be meaningless.
on November 7,2013 | 02:09PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Keith_Rollman - Prove that. Give us a link. (Your BS does not count)
on November 7,2013 | 01:15PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Keith_Rollman - Still waiting for proof of your claim that "Actually there is a Supreme Court ruling that says what the people thought they were voting on with a constitutional amendment has precedence over all deceptive and oblique legislative contortions."
on November 7,2013 | 01:48PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Keith?
on November 7,2013 | 02:59PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Keith - Still waiting.
on November 7,2013 | 04:08PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
keep waiting, makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:27PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Keith has reached his daily quota for posting on this web site. He will return tomorrow to rile you up again.
on November 7,2013 | 09:19PM
Ulalei wrote:
We as a people need to urge our Legislators to outlaw homosexuality. Only then can we truly live as God intended!
on November 7,2013 | 01:24PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Ulalei - We as a people need to urge our Legislators to outlaw stupidity. Then we won't get any posts from Ulalei.
on November 7,2013 | 02:06PM
Ulalei wrote:
If the Bible says that homosexuality is going against God's will, then homosexuality as a whole should not be tolerated. Fighting the battle on SB 1 to prevent gay marriage does not solve the bigger problem of preventing gays! We as Christians cannot pick and choose to follow only parts of the Bible and God's divine will. If you believe in God then you believe that homosexuality should be illegal! God wills it!
on November 7,2013 | 03:01PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
The bible also says adultery and prostitution is punishable by death. Should that also be the law of the land? God wills it?
on November 7,2013 | 09:24PM
Matsu wrote:
Makapuu- beacusae someone disagrees with you does not make them stupid. So what you are saying is that anybody "you" deem as stupid, should not be allowed to voice their opinion? So progressive of you. By the way, do you know where the phrase "politically correct" started? It cam out of the old Soviet Union. Maybe not such a good idea to follow their lead.
on November 7,2013 | 03:04PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Matsu - You are right. Disagreeing with me is not what made Ulalei stupid.
on November 7,2013 | 04:08PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
you are right, makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:28PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze - Of course I am right.
on November 7,2013 | 06:03PM
Ulalei wrote:
I guess believing in God made me stupid
on November 7,2013 | 09:00PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
A vote of the people would clarify it all.
on November 7,2013 | 01:53PM
false wrote:
LOL
on November 7,2013 | 01:59PM
MariaBetty wrote:
I'm as confused as the B in LGBT, sometimes I like girls, other times I like boys its in my DNA.
on November 7,2013 | 02:07PM
allie wrote:
sounds like my dorm!
on November 7,2013 | 02:13PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
MariaBetty - I've read your posts. You are often confused.
on November 7,2013 | 03:00PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:28PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:04PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Yes ... but in a good way.
on November 7,2013 | 09:28PM
pakeheat wrote:
is LGBT stands for Liberal Gays Bad Transsexuals?
on November 7,2013 | 03:59PM
Usagi336 wrote:
Ummm...are you a guy or a girl? I'm confused.
on November 7,2013 | 04:19PM
nalogirl wrote:
Okay, not about SSM. Sakamoto says the "intent" as presented to the people could be the issue. So if that's the case with this, what about that question on the ballot regarding if we wanted rail? That question was so messed up, epople voting no actually were voting yes and blank votes were counted as yes. Maybe this should be brought to court too.
on November 7,2013 | 02:56PM
Bothrops wrote:
"Sakamoto cited the unique context of a 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to heterosexual couples. The judge acknowledged that many voters might have thought at the time that the vote was narrowly meant to prohibit same-sex marriage, not give the Legislature the power to define marriage in other ways. Sakamoto said the question is whether it is unconstitutional, because of the 1998 vote, for the Legislature to expand marriage beyond heterosexual couples. This may be judicial misconduct. Once a bill is passed, he can get involved, but to say he will intervene even when he doesn't know its final wording is ethically dubious. He is interfering with the Legislative Branch as this could affect passage, one way or another. Also he is expressing a personal opinion that "many voters might have thought". He is a judge, not a newspaper columnist.
on November 7,2013 | 03:05PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Bothrops - How can Sakamoto possibly know what "many voters might have thought"?
on November 7,2013 | 03:13PM
Bothrops wrote:
beats me. Mind reader? NSA?
on November 7,2013 | 04:38PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't.
on November 7,2013 | 09:30PM
bengoshi wrote:
This headline is misleading. The judge refused to issue a TRO. But he did not rule out hearing the complaint again once the measure is enacted. How could he say otherwise since the bill hasn't passed or been signed? As for the merits, the legislature has always, since the 19th century, had purview over marriage limitations and the privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. The ConAm of 1998 broadened the legislative ability to include gender-based restriction, which had been judged to be unconsitutional without such amending language. To argue that somehow now the legislature does not have the ability to expand or restrict marriage qualifications is absurd in fact and law.
on November 7,2013 | 03:59PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
bengoshi - "To argue that somehow now the legislature does not have the ability to expand or restrict marriage qualifications is absurd in fact and law." Excellent point. However, we both know opponents are going to try it.
on November 7,2013 | 04:07PM
AmbienDaze wrote:
makapiss4
on November 7,2013 | 05:29PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:04PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Can't "restrain" a law that hasn't been passed yet. Common sense yes.
on November 7,2013 | 09:31PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze - Is that you Keith?
on November 7,2013 | 06:03PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:05PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
AszholeCraze
on November 7,2013 | 06:05PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News