Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 149 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet


By Star-Advertiser staff

& Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 12:09 a.m. HST, Nov 09, 2013

The state House voted to approve the same-sex marriage bill late  Friday night, sending the measure back to the Senate where it is expected to be approved next week then sent to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature.

The roll call vote, just after 10 p.m., was 30-19 with two members excused.

The approval came after the second marathon hearing this week as hundreds of raucous opponents and proponents demonstrated outside the House chamber, and after more than 55 hours of public testimony over five days of House committee hearings that began last week.

The bill would allow same-sex couples to marry as soon as Dec. 2 but would broaden a religious exemption for churches and religious organizations that do not want to be involved in gay weddings.

Minutes after the vote, Gov. Neil Abercrombie said in a news release: "I commend the House of Representatives for taking this historic vote to move justice and equality forward.

"After more than 50 hours of public testimony from thousands of testifiers on both sides of the issue, evaluating dozens of amendments, and deliberating procedures through hours of floor debates, the House passed this significant bill, which directly creates a balance between marriage equity for same-sex couples and protects our First Amendment freedoms for religious organizations."

In an emotional speech on the House floor before the vote, bill supporter Rep. Kaniela Ing, a South Maui Democrat, repeatedly asked, "How many more gay people must God create before we realize that he wants them here?"

The Senate could hear the bill on Tuesday. Senators said Thursday that although they prefer their version of the bill, which contains a narrower religious exemption, they are inclined to take the House version, provided it is not amended further.

"That seems like the prevailing mood of the members I spoke to," said Sen. Clayton Hee (D, Heeia-Laie-Waialua), chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee.

If the Senate agrees to the House version Tuesday, it would go directly to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his expected signature.

Hee said he is not pleased with the broader religious exemption in the House bill. "However, having said that, it doesn't detract from making second-class citizens first-class citizens," he said.

Likewise, Abercrombie, a Democrat, earlier indicated that he can support the current versionof the bill.

Before Friday night's vote, state House representatives rejected more than two dozen proposed amendments by bill opponents, seeking to delay, postpone or weaken the bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Later in the night, bill opponent Rep. Beth Fukumoto (R, Mililani-Mililani Mauka) complained about the special session, "This process is broken. And the measure is flawed because of it."

The hearing began just after 10 a.m. Lawmakers quickly shot down four floor amendments by Republican opponents of the bill before lunch. The proposals included calling for a task force to study gay marriage, opt-outs for people who object to same-sex marriage and for children learning about gay people in schools, and an exemption for religious organizations in the state's public accommodations law.

After returning from lunch, the full House continued to reject opponents' proposed amendments with House Speaker Joe Souki limiting the discussion to 10 minutes for each motion before being called to a vote.

When told debate would be limited, Republican Rep. Gene Ward of Hawaii Kai protested and asked for the rules to be specified and clarified.

"It's cooking the books," Ward said as Souki declared an immediate recess and lawmakers scrambled to argue about the rules amid cheers and jeers from the gallery.

The time limit allowed the House to hear -- and reject -- more than 20 more amendments. At 6:15 p.m., the House began debating the actual bill.

Friday's hearing unfurled similar to Wednesday's contentious, emotional 11-hour hearing in which the House voted 30-18 vote to move the bill to the final vote.

While members debated the proposed changes in the House chamber, a crowd of protestors on both sides of the issue chanted and sang just outside in the Capitol rotunda chant and sing.

"It's a shame that they think they will be doing the right thing, but I think it's sinful," 54-year-old Frank Kauhi of Honolulu said Friday as he held a sign that said "Remember next November," a reference to the 2014 elections.

Across the Capitol rotunda, Episcopal Rev. Walter Brownridge led supporters of same-sex marriage in a prayer. "May our Legislature show the wisdom to be compassionate and not fearful," said Brownridge, of the Cathedral of St. Andrew in Honolulu.

Demonstrations outside the House chamber on Wednesday at times turned intense, with shouting by opponents of gay marriage heard inside the state House chamber.

In anticipation of Friday's demonstrations outside the House chamber, state sheriffs took added security precautions meant to permit passionate exchanges while preserving safety and preventing disruptions.

Barricades were arranged outside the House chamber to prevent demonstrators from banging on or poking flagpoles on the windows to the chamber.

The opponents and supporters of the bill were also divided inside the House gallery so neither will have a numerical advantage. Both sides were also asked to share Beretania Street, a popular venue for sign-waving.


For the vote breakdown on final House vote on the same-sex marriage bill, see our Political Radar blog at http://bit.ly/1dTPalt

 Print   Email   Comment | View 149 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

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.
PMINZ wrote:
I feel that this issue is meant to distract us all away from watching the Choo Choo Train goings on!
on November 8,2013 | 09:28AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Or the Hawaii health Connector goat rope, or the HCDA development rampage, or the $20 billion in unfunded liabilities or the declining economic reports or the failure to deal with homeless or the....yes, the train. This SSM has all been a huge ball of distraction, an expensive special session, a poorly crafted legislation and divisive. The question simply needs a vote of the people to resolve, just like that notoriously ambiguous 1998 proposition was a vote of the people.
on November 8,2013 | 09:39AM
HanabataDays wrote:
There's nothing the least bit "ambiguous" about the wording of the 1998 constitutional amendment. The meaning of the plain language is perfectly clear. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely smoke and mirrors, and there's not a court in the State who will see it any other way.
on November 8,2013 | 10:26AM
false wrote:
Better tell McDermouth.
on November 8,2013 | 11:33AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Indeed what Amendment2 did was give the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The Legislature does not have the power under Amendment2 of the Hawaii Constitution to enact an SSM law. And without the authority of the Hawaii Constitution to enact an SSM law, the Marriage Equality Act is therefore null and void by virtue of Amendment 2 of the Constitution of Hawaii.
on November 8,2013 | 11:59AM
Fred01 wrote:
Are you that stupid? Really?
on November 8,2013 | 01:03PM
Kuniarr wrote:
You are the one stupid. Really, For not knowing the power Amendment2 or Article I, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution gave the State Legislature concerning opposite-sex marriage.
on November 8,2013 | 01:13PM
Fred01 wrote:
Apparently you failed elementary school reading?
on November 8,2013 | 03:27PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Fred01 you must be a foreigner who needs to learn English as a Second Language. For it is unimaginable that you do not understand nor know the plain and simple language of Art. I, sec. 23 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii which says:

The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
on November 8,2013 | 08:53PM
kiragirl wrote:
The most important word that you omitted is the last word - ONLY which will be used to prove INTENT.
on November 8,2013 | 09:33PM
kuewa wrote:
Yes, the wording is ambiguous. And it certainly does not forbid the legislature from legalizing SSM.
on November 8,2013 | 12:58PM
Fred01 wrote:
And you're that stupid too?
on November 8,2013 | 01:03PM
kuewa wrote:
Calling someone stupid doesn't make you any smarter. I guess you didn't learn that back in elementary school.
on November 8,2013 | 02:20PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The wording is chrystal clear: (1) the Legislature was given a power (2) what was that power? the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. So reserving marriage to same-sex couples is beyond the power and scope given the Legislature. That makes a SSM law worthless and null and void.
on November 8,2013 | 01:17PM
kuewa wrote:
The Legislature has the power to pass laws related to the government definition of marriage. It has always had this right. There is nothing in the wording of the amendment which limits this legislative authority. In fact, as worded, the amendment is granting the legislature an authority that it already had.
on November 8,2013 | 02:19PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Thank you for understanding and stating it.
on November 8,2013 | 03:54PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Not on Marriage, the Legislature does not have any power except that which Art. I sec. 23 defines what that power is: - to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Nothing and simply nothing in Art. I, sec. 23 does it imply that the Constitution of the State of Hawaii gives the Legislature the power only to and only to reserve marriage.

Art.I, sec. 23 is explicit in defining what exactly is the power given the Legislature: to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Legislature is limited in its power to enact any and all laws unless it complies with the dictates of the State Constitution. Any law that does not comply with the dictates of the State Constitution is made worthless or null and void by the Court.
on November 8,2013 | 09:11PM
mitt_grund wrote:
Yup, saying that the Leg has the right to do so does not preempt it from deciding otherwise. And they did so tonight. Now, as it is already apparent, appeals all the way to the Conservative-dominated Supreme Court. It'll be interesting what they decide.
on November 8,2013 | 09:17PM
EightOEight wrote:
More like clear as mud, obviously, judging from all the posts on this site.
on November 8,2013 | 03:13PM
HD36 wrote:
Tell that to Rep John Mizuno
on November 8,2013 | 06:33PM
copperwire9 wrote:
I'm proud of Rep. Mizuno.
on November 8,2013 | 11:05PM
mcc wrote:
What does it mean to you?
on November 8,2013 | 02:24PM
surless wrote:
Give it up, HanabataDays. You lost ! Get over it. My prediction is that the courts will uphold the actions of the legislature today. The 1998 amendment only gave the legislature the RIGHT to reserve marriage to one man, one woman. It did NOT say that they MUST to.do that. It's a good day in Hawaii for people who have gay loved ones and for people who believe in justice, fairness and equality. And a bad day for rthe eligious bigots and narrow other minded people. I sat through more than 10 hours of testimony, mostly from Christians who wanted to dictate to me who I can love and who I can marry. Let them worry about their OWN marriages, and not worry about who other people choose to marry.
on November 8,2013 | 09:26PM
9ronboz wrote:
on November 8,2013 | 10:44PM
RichardCory wrote:
It's funny how these people on both sides will come in droves and yell with such animosity over something so pathetically trivial, it's almost intellectually insulting. And yet none of these people would ever come out to riot and protest about the fact the NSA is literally murdering their Fourth Amendment rights on a daily basis. The possibility of two men being able to "marry" each other is somehow more fundamentally important to these people than the fact that their government is basically run by criminals. This is just a circus.
on November 8,2013 | 10:17AM
DemBones wrote:
Yes, this is more important. Civil rights is the right to exist as everyone (else) in Hawaii. Auwe to those who would keep those same rights from others. There is enough love for everyone, don't try to hoard all the love for selfish reasons. Is this not a Christian virtue?
on November 8,2013 | 10:32AM
blackmurano wrote:
s love enough to help two homosexayl dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? This question shines the light of truth and the situation. Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female paretns to become who they are meant to be. God designed the family that way. But there are those who opposed everything that stands for who God Almighty is. With the help of the liberal Democratic party, they will usher in "The Total Collapse of Morality" in our State of Hawaii.
on November 8,2013 | 10:55AM
false wrote:
THe wall will come down, the floods will come and there will be fires in the sky.
on November 8,2013 | 11:35AM
seaborn wrote:
Oh well, at least all citizens will be equal when it happens!
on November 8,2013 | 04:30PM
Eradication wrote:
Mumbo-jumbo, blah, blah, blah.
on November 8,2013 | 09:23PM
Ulalei wrote:
what about the single dad whose wife died and is caring for his daughters?
on November 8,2013 | 11:43AM
Usagi336 wrote:
Believe me Ulalei, men who are or were married to women know a LOT about a female's menstrual period!
on November 8,2013 | 12:03PM
Ulalei wrote:
on November 8,2013 | 01:41PM
EightOEight wrote:
And LGBTs have family and friends of both genders. Heck, they can watch Dr. Phil, Oprah, Join parent support groups, go to the library, and their churches etc. They don't live in a bubble!
on November 8,2013 | 03:12PM
sluggah wrote:
Parenting by Oprah and Dr Phil????? You gotta be funnin me!
on November 8,2013 | 03:26PM
EightOEight wrote:
Sluggah, you obviously don't watch much Dr. Phil or Oprah or you would know I ain't funnin'...
on November 8,2013 | 06:53PM
Eradication wrote:
You have a "thing" about female menstrual cycles? I believe people are smarter than you give them credit for. Parents, both hetero and gay, have dealt with difficult life issues for centuries. Gay couples have been raising children long before you and I were even born.
on November 8,2013 | 09:08PM
8082062424 wrote:
There is a gap in a child life if they do not have a mother and father be it straight or gay.that why Big Brother and Big sister was started to fill that gap. and most of the time other family members fill that gap
on November 8,2013 | 12:33PM
aomohoa wrote:
Mahalo. That is sort of the point I was trying to make with Blackmurano. I was annoyed and couldn't gather my thoughts.
on November 8,2013 | 06:00PM
pcman wrote:
IRT black on Dems. This is just another step for government to control our lives. They have already ruined safety by letting convicted rapists/killers/burglars out, destroyed education in a state controlled system, worsened traffic to be the worst in the country, increased cost of living by higher taxes and union labor costs, increased costs of transportation by building a rail that will not reduce traffic and so on. Next is the destruction of family values and safety of children in SS families What's the Dems going to destroy next?
on November 8,2013 | 01:37PM
seaborn wrote:
How is the safety of children diminished in same-sex families? Show me numbers. Oh, and traffic will be reduced by rail by one vehicle for each person that uses rail.
on November 8,2013 | 04:32PM
seaborn wrote:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
on November 8,2013 | 04:29PM
aomohoa wrote:
What a ridiculous comment. More than 1/3 of children grow up and are from broken homes. Do you not think there are any divorced dads that have to communicate with their daughters? What is the difference. Two loving parents are better better than divorced heterosexual that are not good parents.
on November 8,2013 | 05:58PM
itsok wrote:
Can you tell me where you went to school?
on November 8,2013 | 08:25PM
localguy wrote:
blackmumbojumbo knows their position is so weak, trying to spin it every way possible but only looking more lost, clueless, and dysfunctional. Yes, some very weak minded people trying to post and just can't make the grade.
on November 8,2013 | 10:07PM
EightOEight wrote:
Pathetically trivial to you, RichardCory, but not to those who are discriminated against. You got yours so to heck with the others, right?
on November 8,2013 | 03:16PM
ehrhornp wrote:
Well, country was run by criminals but with Obama, not nearly so much.
on November 8,2013 | 03:17PM
Mediocrates wrote:
Cowardly Cabanilla of Ewa Beach couldn't even show up to vote. 100% of the voters here are pissed. Time for someone new.
on November 8,2013 | 11:03PM
sooregonian wrote:
Fight warriors fight! The clear majority are the ones being treated as second-class citizens. Let the people vote. If it was the right thing to do in 1998 it is right today. Traditional ohana must be preserved, not perverted by a radical mainland supported agenda. Foreigners stole your land and sovereignty and now a PC Hawaiian legislature and gov are attempting to usurp your rights and traditional family values. A carve-out religious exemption does not make this travesty palatable for moral consumption.
on November 8,2013 | 10:27AM
DemBones wrote:
"Radical mainland supported agenda!?" Doesn't your user name denote you are from Oregon?
on November 8,2013 | 10:35AM
sooregonian wrote:
Hello friend -- yes, last stop was blue state Oregon and prior to that Ca.for many decades. So now you know where my "mainland" perspective comes from. My opponents arguments and tactics are familiar to this conservative family man. Have you visited Oregon yet?
on November 8,2013 | 11:31AM
peum wrote:
I have. Many times. Portland is awesome. The other areas, not so much probably because of people like you.
on November 8,2013 | 11:53AM
sooregonian wrote:
Ouch...good idea for you not to travel south below the liberal enclave of Eugene. I infiltrated awesome Portland too so we have that in common. Aloha.
on November 8,2013 | 04:06PM
HanabataDays wrote:
Hey Oregon, the ancient Hawai`ians -- like many native Americans and Polynesians -- had no particular problem with same-sex relationships. Don't make this an "us vs. them" when you aren't familiar with the history of the people you claim to be protecting against "foreign radicals".
on November 8,2013 | 10:56AM
Skyler wrote:
They're changing the law because of benefits, not because of relationships. If the Feds had said they would give Fed. benefits to those individuals joined by Civil Union (Legally-recorded and legal contractual relationships) there would be no need for all this 'marriage' business

Civil unions should be the law of the land; marriages (religious or otherwise) should be optional. But here you have the Government sticking its nose into what shouldn't concern them; hence you have mass chaos.
on November 8,2013 | 11:05AM
8082062424 wrote:
your right native Hawaiians before contact had no problem with same-sex relationships every one was free to love who they choose. but they also did not have marriage it was not part of there culture so you can not compare the two./ Some still hold on to the old ways which is there right. But for many other natives Hawaiians they embrace the 1839 Constitution of the Hawaiian kingdom which is there right, one rule does not fit all. and both sides have every right to what they feel and believe
on November 8,2013 | 11:07AM
sooregonian wrote:
Thanks HanabataDays for pointing my canoe in the right direction as it relates to historical same-sex Polynesian relationships. Love learning from a kamaaina. I firmly believe the historical definition of marriage should stand as it has stood the test of time. For the record, I support civil unions but SSM is voyage fraught with peril.
on November 8,2013 | 04:19PM
localguy wrote:
sooregonian - Wow, some one is on the rant for no reason. Need to get a life and stay out of areas where you haven't got a clue. SSM is the tide sweeping the world, approved in other states and many countries. It will continue to spread. Either you are part of the change or you get left behind in the dust. The Nei is usually the last to make any progressive changes. Just as the Nei was last to take the SSN off the drivers license but left it on the state ID card for a while. And lets not forget it took an ADA lawsuit to eliminate the out of date pet quarantine, a wasteful money maker for the state. Yes, 50th state, last in every way. Just Git'r Done!!
on November 8,2013 | 12:22PM
ghstar wrote:
Please define "traditional ohana" and "traditional family values" in a preconquest Hawaiian context. Before Hawaiian culture was perverted by a radical mainland Christian supported agenda, that was forced on the Hawaiians by missionaries, soldiers, merchants, and plantation owners. You really are completely self-centered in your right-wing, conservative "Christian" view of the world and willfully ignorant of traditional cultures around the world.
on November 8,2013 | 12:26PM
sooregonian wrote:
Ghstar, we have agreement on the horrific damage inflicted upon Hawaiians by said parties with an agenda -- Christian or otherwise. I was not attempting to argue about traditional family/values in a pre-conquest era. My conservative bent is closer to the mainstream than the looney left. My position on SSM comes primarily from a secular perspective. As to traditional cultures, again we agree on the importance. Traditional cultures around the world define marriage as between one man and one woman. Thanks for your response.
on November 8,2013 | 05:39PM
Kuniarr wrote:
No need to vote. An SSM law enacted in this Special Session is beyond the scope and power the State Constitution gave the State Legislature and is therefore null and void and worthless.
on November 8,2013 | 01:22PM
Skyler wrote:
We can only hope sanity and law prevails.
on November 8,2013 | 02:21PM
itsok wrote:
majority vote should not be use for individual rights. Remember the times interracial marriage was banned; the "majority" did not like it at that time but it was not a subject to vote on because it was a civil rights issue....
on November 8,2013 | 07:59PM
Eradication wrote:
As a native Hawaiian I find it offensive that you use terminology such as Ohana yet really don't know what it means. Na Kanaka Maoli have embraced the mahu lifestyle long before your missionary snake oil clergy arrived in these islands. It is people like you who are usurping our traditional culture and lifestyle. Take your "values" back to where it came from. We didn't need it then, we don't need it now.
on November 8,2013 | 09:15PM
blackmurano wrote:
Question: Don't kids just need a set of parents to love them - either same-sex parents or a man and a women? Answer: Our politically correct society have become an afterthought. Mounds of research document the harm that is done to children who are raised without a loving, maried mother and father. Those most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A homosexual man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A homosexual man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A Lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Same-sex parents will invitably give a child an incomplete understanding of and appreciation for the difference gender. Children need a Mother and Father as parents. God of the bible design it that way. But others want to change that.
on November 8,2013 | 10:44AM
HanabataDays wrote:
So what about single-parent families? Do we outlaw those too? Jesus wept.
on November 8,2013 | 10:57AM
blackmurano wrote:
Nothing is wrong with a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman, but a sexual expression of that love "is Strictly prohibited." Scripture teaches that God is love. But that teaching cannot be twisted to support behavior that contradicts other verses that establish God's boundaries for emotional and sexual intimacy. Jesus Christ couldn't have made this any clearer when He said, "But from the beginning of the CREATION God made them MALE and FEMALE. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so than they are longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together (first marriage on earth) let noe man separate."
on November 8,2013 | 11:19AM
localguy wrote:
blackmumbojumbo, earth to blackmumbojumbo. Hello, God did not make any of us. We came in to our existence on our own, proven by science. Where have you been?
on November 8,2013 | 12:26PM
itsok wrote:
I hope for your sake you're not serious. Don't forget to take your pills if you're serious.
on November 8,2013 | 08:27PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
But don't most LGBT get that way from an abusive "traditional" family setting? Abusive male dad figure, physical and sexual. Divorce, alcohol, drugs, infidelity? Don't we assume most come from below the poverty line?
on November 8,2013 | 11:25AM
localguy wrote:
Negative. Urban legend. Born the way they were. Need to update your research. Did you attend the Nei's failing education system?
on November 8,2013 | 12:27PM
EightOEight wrote:
OMG, NanakuliBoss. Where did you get all that rubbish from? You need to educate yourself better. At least you ask in a way that indicates you're open to learning the truth and not relying on bigoted stereotypes.
on November 8,2013 | 03:46PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Ah 808, it ain't rubbish. Saw this living in the projects. Most mahu and butchies came from broken families. Then again most living in the projects were broken. Lol. A mahu or butch came out real early when living in poverty. Traditional familys gays stayed in the closet longer because of shame. Project kids didn't give a fk what others thought. Just saying.
on November 8,2013 | 10:16PM
aomohoa wrote:
Tell me you aren't serious??? I know you are pro rail, but I know you were smarter than your comment.
on November 8,2013 | 06:06PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Just being sarc. Geez.
on November 8,2013 | 10:08PM
peum wrote:
Disagree. I know way too many "traditional" families who should not be parents. Dysfunction knows no orientation.
on November 8,2013 | 11:56AM
localguy wrote:
YYEEESSSSSSS Way too many dysfunctional parents of all types.
on November 8,2013 | 12:27PM
aomohoa wrote:
on November 8,2013 | 06:07PM
wes wrote:
Please stop spewing lies. A single parent or gay parents are capable of raising fine children. I suggest you dig around to and ask children of single parents how they are doing as adults. You might be surprised.
on November 8,2013 | 12:20PM
localguy wrote:
blackmumbojumbo is talking shibai again. Studies have proven a child needs loving parents, all male, all female, or both, really doesn't matter. They will do just fine. As for teaching children, blackmumbojumbo fails to consider single parents who for decades have been raising children just fine. Yes, blackmumbojumbo, direct product of the Nei's failing education system. Falling further and further behind the civilized world.
on November 8,2013 | 12:25PM
aomohoa wrote:
I can only imagine what blackmumbojumbo(I like that) tells his kids about gays. I'm sure he teaches hate.
on November 8,2013 | 06:09PM
itsok wrote:
on November 8,2013 | 08:26PM
ClearHeaded wrote:
Religious fanatics: look inward for peace. Insisting that others agree with your beliefs is an embarrassing waste of time. Not to mention shamefully arrogant.
on November 8,2013 | 10:59AM
medigogo wrote:
No. It's the other side that's insisting we agree with them. I'd say, if they just want marriage, go ahead. But give a generous exemption to other folks, including my photographer uncle who won;t serve a gay couple. Why do they want o shovel their value on others. BTST, I don't want my kids to be re-educated about SSM in public school. If they say no such thing is there, then put in an exemption to make sure that it won't happen in the future. That's pono. Everybody gets what they want. No pushing on the other side.
on November 8,2013 | 11:17AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Medi if the gay couple smile for the camera, what's wrong with that? Well if they ask for risqué shots ,well that's different.
on November 8,2013 | 11:27AM
8082062424 wrote:
here the thing a photographer does not have a problem with taking x mass picture or a couple picture. it lay in wedding pictures. they have to par take of the wedding to do that. and if that goes against there religious views then they are in fact having this life style forced on them
on November 8,2013 | 11:42AM
medigogo wrote:
You're right. I don't think my uncle will have a problem shooting for a gay or even a gay family. But if the two partners would have kiss or pose nude half nude together or things like that, or in a gay wedding, he should have the right to exercise his religious/cultural freedom without the government ordering him to go against his rights or shut down and give up his livelihood. It's not about fear or bigotry or children or that. It's quite manifest that they want more than marriage equality itself or federal benefits. Again, I have no problem they go register marriage or CU. Just do it and keep it to yourself.
on November 8,2013 | 01:16PM
aomohoa wrote:
And do you know straight people who pose nude? LOL What kind of photographer is your uncle??
on November 8,2013 | 06:12PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Oh and most wedding planners and such are gayish.
on November 8,2013 | 10:10PM
ClearHeaded wrote:
People like you will never get it. Making it ok within a law to discriminate against another group of people is wrong (some might call it anti-Christian). You have no respect for your children (who will grow up to be straight or gay without you being able to do anything about it). Are so insecure and frightened because you think the big, bad, gays will take over the world and force children, or us all, to be gay?...poor thing.
on November 8,2013 | 11:34AM
blackmurano wrote:
Homosexual activist will now push for acceptance in our Public schools. Homosexual marriages (Perversion marriage) would make it difficult to stop broad, sweeping promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in our public schools. Our younger keikies are very susceptible to sexual identity teaching. When you teach a little boy from the first grad on that when he grows up, it will be perfectly all right for him to marry David, his friend; when you teach first grade keikies that Haunani has two mommies and Kevin has two daddies, and that's perfectly normal - talk about creating sexual confusion.
on November 8,2013 | 12:28PM
EightOEight wrote:
Here we go again, fear mongering. Same- sex couples with children exist in our society, that is a fact. Why do you want kids in school to be ignorant and not understand this? Just as schools have to be sensitive to the fact that kids are raised learning different religions, are of different ethnicities and cultures, come from from families of different income levels, etc they will be sensitive to the fact that some are raised in homes where both parents are of the same sex. This fallacy that schools are going to promote the homosexual lifestyle is simply ridiculous.
on November 8,2013 | 04:03PM
8082062424 wrote:
here the thing just like religion should not be pushed on student in our public schools nor should this life style.. the public school system has no right to set students moral compass or value system. when the state starts doing that it become a state religion in our school
on November 8,2013 | 05:45PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Didn't DOE superintendent Matayoshi recently state in an interview that the DOE does not have marriage as a lesson in its curriculum. That being said--what would prompt the DOE to add same-sex marriage to its curriculum?
on November 8,2013 | 06:00PM
hawaiikone wrote:
on November 9,2013 | 07:37AM
EightOEight wrote:
What gives you the idea that schools are going to "push" the gay lifestyle on students? Really??
on November 8,2013 | 06:50PM
sooregonian wrote:
Blackmurano, you are outnumbered on this thread but keep posting as others who fear being ostracized or worse need to hear your message. If you and your supporters send your keiki to public schools you should homeschool or find a suitable private school. This maybe the best you can do as the lefts agenda ( common core next up) do irreparable damage to our precious children. I've had my kids in top-rated mainland public schools and now my wife and I are avid homeschoolers; it is the single greatest decision we have made for our daughter and she's on track to attend the college of her choice. Best wishes friend...
on November 8,2013 | 04:36PM
8082062424 wrote:
I agree that why Hawaiian charter school have become so popular . they manage to find a fair balance for all kids
on November 8,2013 | 05:46PM
aomohoa wrote:
You mean like the ones that have 5 kids in a class??
on November 8,2013 | 06:14PM
aomohoa wrote:
What a stupid comment.
on November 8,2013 | 06:13PM
itsok wrote:
Are you OK?
on November 8,2013 | 08:28PM
localguy wrote:
blackmumbojumbo is like chicken little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You fail to comprehend your posts are irrelevant. Nothing has happened in other countries and states passing this years ago. Life goes on just fine. It is you who are badly confused. Truly a product of the Nei's failing education system.
on November 8,2013 | 10:10PM
onwardupward wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on November 8,2013 | 01:28PM
8082062424 wrote:
first just about every one i know when Kids ask why to men or two women are together they answer they are different from us and that a truth so it is pono.. Is it pono to force some one to take part in something they do not believe in or want to be part of nope that not pono. Now marriage is one of the most personal thing two people can share It a ceremony and a ritual is it pono to force other to par take in it and be part of it. Is it pono to be able to force on group beliefs over another is our school system no it not.Now this country give us freedom of religion and freedom from it so for those churches that will perform SSm that great that there religion does. but they do not have the right to force there religion or other of a different religion or those who believe there religion is wrong.... Now it great that you can make new laws to protect folks .But you do not have the right to take away rights from another group to do so.. now people of faith are no fighting for new rights they are fighting that the rights this country give them are protected. This country give all of us the right to set our own moral compass and value system, Both sides of this issue have every right to there feeling and beliefs on this issues . By the way yes some i believe are born gay but a equal amount are not. and there no proof any one born that way just like there no proof there a god.But none of that matter we all free to live our lives as we choose. there was nothing pono about this special session. so pono might not be the word to use
on November 8,2013 | 02:32PM
sailfish1 wrote:
What's the big deal with same-sex marriage? There are plenty of heterosexual couples living together and not married. Why don't these same-sex people do the same and quit making a big deal out of it? Oh yeah! It must be the money (marriage benefits).
on November 8,2013 | 11:10AM
blackmurano wrote:
If you say that two men living together can provide the same healthy environment as a mom and a dad, you are making a profoundly negative statement about women. You are saying that women, half of the human race, are irrelevant to the raising of our keikies, that they make no unique contributions to the raising of the next generation. It is a profoundly derogatory statement about women. Flip it over on its head: You talk about two lesbians raising a child. You are making a profoundly negative statement about men, half the human race, dads, fathers, you're saying they're unnecessary, irrelevant, children don't need them. Well, we know from the data that both these statements are flat-out wrong, that kids need a mom and a dad.
on November 8,2013 | 12:35PM
sailfish1 wrote:
I didn't say anything about what you are talking about.
on November 8,2013 | 06:30PM
localguy wrote:
blackmumbojumbo is like chicken little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You fail to comprehend your posts are irrelevant. Nothing has happened in other countries and states passing this years ago. Life goes on just fine. It is you who are badly confused. Truly a product of the Nei's failing education system. Deal with it.
on November 8,2013 | 10:11PM
kuewa wrote:
Yes, it is about the Federal marriage benefits which are not granted to State-defined civil unions. A co-habiting heterosexual couple can marry and claim Federal marriage benefits. Due to ruling by SCOTUS overturning DOMA, a same-sex married couple can also claim Federal marriage-based benefits. However, in States that do not recognize SSM, some Federal benefits may not apply, thereby creating a constitutional equal protection issue. This is why we need to legalize SSM and move on. Endless quibbling isn't going to remove this issue, which has already contributed to legalization of SSM in several states. The definition of marriage by individual religions and according to personal beliefs is not the issue, and appropriate constitutional and legal protections are in place.
on November 8,2013 | 01:05PM
jrboi96786 wrote:
It would be really funny if that kid with a sign saying "you are messing with my future" turns gay. lol. I'm related or close friends with a lot of "christian" family and raised their kids as much christian as you can get and they turned into drug addict, sluts, and gay.
on November 8,2013 | 11:44AM
Fred01 wrote:
Being raised a bigot, that kid has no future.
on November 8,2013 | 01:06PM
localguy wrote:
Check out this Youtube video on how kids react to talking about gay marriages. Their parents could learn a lot from them as could our dysfunctional bureaucrats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJxnYgP6D8
on November 8,2013 | 12:30PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. —Article I, section 23, The Constitution of the State of Hawaii.

The power given the State legislature was limited to reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples. Enacting any SSM law is beyond the scope and power Article I, section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii gave the Legislature, and therefore makes any SSM law null and void and simply worthless.
on November 8,2013 | 01:20PM
Bdpapa wrote:
Excuse me, aren't they supposed to look at both sides or is this just a pony show?
on November 8,2013 | 01:21PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
You know, that's what I thought, but no matter how many times I've tried to get Mr. Gabbard, Mr. Ward, Ms. Har, etc. to look at both sides and maybe change their mind, it's been really obvious their minds were made up long ago.
on November 8,2013 | 01:50PM
seaborn wrote:
Yep, look at both sides, and side with the side supporting equal rights.
on November 8,2013 | 04:36PM
MariaBetty wrote:
With claims that the majority of people support SB1. Let the people vote, again!
on November 8,2013 | 03:26PM
itsok wrote:
majority vote should not be use for individual rights. Remember interracial marriages; we did not vote then because people have rights even if they are in the minority.
on November 8,2013 | 08:02PM
Skyler wrote:
You can't think away your race, but you sure as heck can dwell on your desires enough to action them. And you can also have a change of desire. The minute you can think away race - you can compare. Until then, you can't.
on November 8,2013 | 09:49PM
2NDC wrote:
"Hawaii '78"! :-(
on November 8,2013 | 03:46PM
Cricket_Amos wrote:
"May our Legislature show the wisdom to be compassionate and not fearful," said Brownridge, of the Cathedral of St. Andrew in Honolulu. How about compassion for the families who want to live their lives in harmony with their religious beliefs? Brownridge's logic is deeply flawed. You could just as easily argue for compassion for thieves who steal something because without it they will not be happy? In fact, it is not that different to what is going on here.
on November 8,2013 | 04:14PM
seaborn wrote:
If families want to live their lives in harmony with their religious beliefs and not give equal rights to others, isn't that the same as living in Iran?
on November 8,2013 | 04:35PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Your logic likewise appears to be a bit flawed from the perspective that you are comparing the behavior of same-sex couples to that of a criminal. If homosexual/lesbian sexual relations were illegal--then you would have a point. I'm a straight-as-an-arrow heterosexual male who firmly believes that the Bible condemns homosexuality. However, the Bible also condemns practices such as drunkenness, obesity, greediness, etc. While all of the aforementioned practices are considered serious sins--they are not illegal in and of themselves. So using your logic--would it be just and lawful to deny civil rights to those who get drunk, who are obese or who are greedy based on the Bible's teachings that such behavior is morally reprehensible?
on November 8,2013 | 05:33PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
If you were to apply the Bible's teachings to heterosexual couples with regard to whether or not they should be afforded civil rights--what about married heterosexual couples who commit adultery? Should their marriage be automatically annulled because the Bible condemns adultery? And what about heterosexual couples who engage in sex without being married--living in sin--a lifestyle that is most certainly condemned in Holy Scripture as well? Should we now view these ones as moral outcasts of society in order to show, "....compassion for the families who want to live their lives in harmony with religious beliefs?" And don't get me started on divorce--which the Bible frowns upon--especially if a divorcee does so without just cause.
on November 8,2013 | 05:49PM
localguy wrote:
tigerwarrior - You fail to understand the bible was written by us lowly humans. It is irrelevant in today's world, no one goes by it save for weak minded individuals who need religion for a crutch. Again, bible's words are irrelevant.
on November 8,2013 | 10:13PM
jimbone wrote:
Remember how your representative voted, and come November give em the boot. The midget is pretty much gone come November.
on November 8,2013 | 06:28PM
localguy wrote:
tigerwarrior - You do understand the bible was written by us lowly humans, it is filled with flaws and wrong information. There is no god, proven by science, no supreme being to watch over all the billions of planets and life forms in the cosmos. Sooo taking all that in to consideration, the bible is irrelevant.
on November 8,2013 | 08:00PM
ISCREAM wrote:
For that matter there is no proof that we exist...
on November 8,2013 | 08:15PM
Skyler wrote:
Sure there is. You wouldn't be attempting to communicate unless you - and the people you're trying to communicate to - existed.
on November 8,2013 | 09:51PM
anthokie wrote:
I went to Capitol, people shouted out loud and clear " LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!". Yes, as a freedom country, has to let Hawaii People make a decision. the way Senates pass the bill and House bill passed 2 reading not too much different than the way China government do--> COMMUNISM METHOD
on November 8,2013 | 08:11PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Can anyone answer this question: If marriage is a right why do we have to pay for and have a license to get married?
on November 8,2013 | 08:14PM
itsok wrote:
"right" doesn't mean "free". For example, we have the right to bear arms...that doesn't mean guns are free.
on November 8,2013 | 08:32PM
GrLan21 wrote:
The next logical step is legalized polygamy! And then legalized marrying of siblings; legalization of marrying your pet! How should these be illegal too? Can anyone clarify this to me? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this question. We are discriminating against polygamists too!
on November 8,2013 | 09:36PM
CnDnM wrote:
Great point! What is the Bible's stance on polygamy?
on November 8,2013 | 10:53PM
Kuahiwi wrote:
Dear Advertiser Staff, When you update the content of a story, please change the link as well. The title of the article says one thing, but the link says something else and it is out-of-date. This mismatch happens often when you update a story.
on November 8,2013 | 09:40PM
localguy wrote:
The SA has a lowly cub reporter handling this. They are not paid to think, just update.
on November 8,2013 | 10:14PM
Aloha0711 wrote:
since our government thinks it is above the law (the people of Hawaii voted already against it in 1998) and has nothing better to do than to spend tax dollars on something absurd as same sex marriage, perhaps some people may want to petition our governor and the other non essential people in our offices, so they marry their pets now, or perhaps some people may want to marry themselves now.
on November 8,2013 | 09:57PM
copperwire9 wrote:
You do great disservice to your screen name.
on November 8,2013 | 11:07PM
localguy wrote:
For all the weak minded bible thumpers can you hear the winners singing, "Turn out the lights, your party is over"
on November 8,2013 | 10:06PM
Papakolea808 wrote:
Based on the actions of the past legislatures, I had no hope that this Bill would pass. They would have good intentions, then get pressured...and finally cave under the pressure and fill it with amendments making the decision powerless/useless. I thought that once again in the face of adversity, Hawaii would fall short. I thought that every chance we could lead a movement in front of our nation, we would opt to be passive. In this case, I was wrong. Good job legislators. It's good to see you finally make a stand on a tough issue.
on November 8,2013 | 10:18PM
Kuihao wrote:
on November 8,2013 | 10:55PM
Mikehono wrote:
Thank God SB1 passed. There will now be equality among the people of Hawaii.
on November 8,2013 | 10:37PM
9ronboz wrote:
Sad day
on November 8,2013 | 10:43PM
anthokie wrote:
I already know the result from beginning, they made up decision before Special legislative sessions begin. As i said before, testimonies, sign waving, only waste time, energy and tax-payer money, Just play game, They were not seriously listening. Next election, you guys don't vote for them, they still happy because they are ready to retire any way. the same-sex marriage bill FIRST TIME IN HAWAII HISTORY VOTED BY DICTATORSHIP, NOT VOTE BY PEOPLE OF HAWAII. Remember, don't believe what they say or promise watch carefully what they do
on November 8,2013 | 11:11PM
Kaleo744 wrote:
Regardless the final outcome there will be a lot of incumbents losing their seats,that's just the way I see it,as far as I'm concern go marry a dog,go marry what ever floats your boat, as long as youre happy,it's not my business what you do.
on November 8,2013 | 11:55PM
Kaleo744 wrote:
A lot of you are thanking God for this passage. I must be reading a different bible.
on November 9,2013 | 12:03AM
dufus wrote:
God have mercy on us, we will reap what we sow....
on November 9,2013 | 12:26AM
Shotzy wrote:
I think alot of representatives will be losing their seat next election. Bullati comes immediately to mind.
on November 9,2013 | 04:51AM
DRH wrote:
What is the Bible's stance on polygamy? You can have four wives if you have enough money to buy that many.
on November 9,2013 | 10:37AM
waianaetransplant wrote:
If it is a sin to be gay, it's their sin and not mine, my job as a Christian is to love thy neighbor regardless of whom they chose to love. this law protects the children when one parent dies it would give the remaining parent custodial rights insurance benefits could also be paid to a surviving spouse and would also offer some protection from relatives coming in and traumatizing the children further by trying to remove them from the care of the surviving parent this goes back to fundamental laws that our nation was founded upon it says ALL MEN are created equal not heterosexual men but all men Lincoln freed the slaves but look how long it took for African Americans to be able to exercise their right vote there is no difference it's the same fight all over again.
on November 10,2013 | 05:30AM
DRH wrote:
The Bible states that it is OK to have SLAVES SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT The Bible states that it is OK to have slaves as long as they are not members of your own tribe. Africans and Europeans are members of different tribes, so God thinks it is alright for haoles to enslave black people. Is Lincoln burning in Hell for freeing the slaves? In freeing them he was in contempt of God's law.
on November 10,2013 | 06:34PM
Breaking News