Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 124 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Supreme Court gives gay marriage historic boost

By Mark Sherman

Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 04:41 p.m. HST, Jun 26, 2013

WASHINGTON » In a historic day for gay rights, the Supreme Court gave the nation's legally married gay couples equal federal footing with all other married Americans today and also cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California.

In deciding its first cases on the issue, the high court did not issue the sweeping declaration sought by gay rights advocates that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry anywhere in the country. But in two rulings, both by bare 5-4 majorities, the justices gave gay marriage supporters encouragement in confronting the nationwide patchwork of laws that outlaw such unions in roughly three dozen states.

Gay-rights supporters cheered and hugged outside the court. Opponents said they mourned the rulings and vowed to keep up their fight.

In the first of the narrow rulings in its final session of the term, the court wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act, that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits that are otherwise available to married couples.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the four liberal justices, said the purpose of the law was to impose a disadvantage and "a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states."

President Barack Obama praised the court's ruling against the federal marriage act, labeling the law "discrimination enshrined in law."

"It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people," Obama said in a statement. "The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he was disappointed in the outcome of the federal marriage case and hoped states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Boehner, as speaker, had stepped in as the main defender of the law before the court after the Obama administration declined to defend it.

The other case, dealing with California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, was resolved by an unusual lineup of justices in a technical legal fashion that said nothing about gay marriage. But the effect was to leave in place a trial court's declaration that California's Proposition 8 ban was unconstitutional. Gov. Jerry Brown quickly ordered that marriage licenses be issued to gay couples as soon as a federal appeals court lifts its hold on the lower court ruling. That will take least 25 days, the appeals court said.

California, where gay marriage was briefly legal in 2008, would be the 13th state, along with the District of Columbia, to allow same-sex couples to marry and would raise the share of the U.S. population in gay marriage states to 30 percent. Six states have adopted same-sex marriage in the past year, amid a rapid evolution in public opinion that now shows majority support for the right to marry in most polls.

The 12 other states are Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The day's rulings are clear for people who were married and live in states that allow same-sex marriage. They now are eligible for federal benefits.

The picture is more complicated for same-sex couples who traveled to another state to get married, or who have moved from a gay marriage state since being wed.

Their eligibility depends on the benefits they are seeking. For instance, immigration law focuses on where people were married, not where they live. But eligibility for Social Security survivor benefits basically depend on where a couple is living when a spouse dies.

This confusing array of regulations is reflected more broadly in the disparate treatment of gay couples between states. And the court's decision did not touch on another part of the federal marriage law that says a state does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere.

Indeed, the outcome of the cases had supporters of gay marriage already anticipating their next trip to the high court, which they reason will be needed to legalize same-sex unions in all 50 states.

The Human Rights Campaign's president, Chad Griffin, said his goal is to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide within five years through a combination of ballot measures, court challenges and expansion of anti-discrimination laws.

The rulings came 10 years to the day after the court's Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down state bans on gay sex. In his dissent at the time, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted the ruling would lead to same-sex marriage.

Scalia today issued another pungent dissent in the Defense of Marriage Act case in which he made a new prediction that the ruling would be used to upend state restrictions on marriage. Kennedy's majority opinion insisted the decision was limited to legally married same-sex couples.

Scalia today read aloud in a packed courtroom that included the two couples who sued for the right to marry in California. On the bench, Justice Elena Kagan, who voted to strike down DOMA, watched Scalia impassively as he read.

"It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here_when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress' hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will 'confine' the court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with," Scalia said.

Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito, who also wrote a dissenting opinion, said their view is that Constitution does not require states to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Outside the court, some in the crowd hugged and others jumped up and down just after 10 a.m. EDT when the DOMA decision was announced. Many people were on their cellphones monitoring Twitter, news sites and blogs for word of the decision. And there were cheers as runners came down the steps with the decision in hand and turned them over to reporters who quickly flipped through the decisions.

Chants of "Thank you" and "U-S-A" came from the crowd as plaintiffs in the cases descended the court's marbled steps. Most of those in the crowd appeared to support gay marriage, although there was at least one man who held a sign promoting marriage as between a man and a woman.

In New York City's Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, where a riot in 1969 sparked the gay rights movement, erupted in cheers and whooping.

Mary Jo Kennedy, 58 was there with her wife Jo-Ann Shain, 60, and their daughter Aliya Shain, 25.

She came with a sign that could be flipped either way and was holding up the side that says "SCOTUS made our family legal".

They have been together 31 years and got married the day it became legal in New York.

Others were not celebrating.

"We mourn for America's future, but we are not without hope," said Tim Wildmon, president of American Family Association, in a statement.

Said. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council: "Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex 'marriage.' As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify."

The federal marriage law had been struck down by several federal courts, and the justices chose to take up the case of 84-year-old Edith Windsor of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them Spyer would not live much longer. Spyer had suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. She left everything she had to Windsor.

Windsor arrived at a news conference in New York after the ruling to applause from her supporters and said she felt "joyous, just joyous."

Windsor would have paid nothing in inheritance taxes if she had been married to a man. Now she is eligible for a refund.

In the case involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Kennedy was joined by the court's four liberal justices. In the California ruling, which was not along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion was joined by Scalia and three of those liberal court members: Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Associated Press writers Connie Cass, David Crary, Jessica Gresko, Bethan McKernan and Larry Neumeister contributed to this report. Crary, McKernan and Neumeister reported from New York.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 124 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.
kiragirl wrote:
Equal benefits across the board. Great! Just don't call it marriage.
on June 26,2013 | 05:29AM
RichardCory wrote:
Too bad. Go ride your hate train somewhere else.
on June 26,2013 | 06:03AM
8082062424 wrote:
where the hate in her comment ? she right they should have Equal benefits and rights . But call it some thing else. no hate there
on June 26,2013 | 06:08AM
soundofreason wrote:
He's just the overly sensitive type of guy. You know the type.
on June 26,2013 | 06:57AM
Fred01 wrote:
Call it whatever you want dim-wit.
on June 26,2013 | 10:35AM
iansuen wrote:
You can call it anything you want. Do the really semantics matter?
on June 26,2013 | 06:10AM
sgsorensen wrote:
It does matter when "semantics" can prevent you from sponsoring your spouse for immigration, prevent your surviving spouse from receiving benefits if you die, etc.....
on June 26,2013 | 06:44AM
sgsorensen wrote:
why not? how does it harm you in the least? get over it.
on June 26,2013 | 06:49AM
ellinaskyrt wrote:
Jim Crow for our gay brothers and sisters is what you support, then.
on June 26,2013 | 08:41AM
random2cents wrote:
'marriage' kiragirl was also illegal not that long ago for people of different races (loving vs. virginia, 1967). in america getting married should include all the legal rights and benefits for EVERYONE and that includes the right to call it someone your husband or wife, not just your 'partner.' that word has both legal and emotional meaning.
on June 26,2013 | 10:23AM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
kiragirl - separate is NEVER equal. If you think that this ruling is going to harm your marriage then there is something wrong in your marriage and that is not something that the courts or any of us can fix. You should seek counseling.
on June 26,2013 | 11:40AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Love this comment!
on June 26,2013 | 11:49AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
If separate is never Equal, make Homosexual Couple get pregnant and be totally Equal with the Heterosexual Couple. Pity.
on June 26,2013 | 12:11PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." This is another step along that arc now that our gay and lesbian children, parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, etc. have had their relationships validated as equal by the Supreme Court.
on June 26,2013 | 05:47AM
soundofreason wrote:
And now we're well on our way to where I can marry BOTH of my SISTERS soon. Yeah, this is gonna work out just fine :/
on June 26,2013 | 06:21AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
yes yes, you can also marry a goat, a tin can, a slug, whatevers... same old straw man tactics.
on June 26,2013 | 09:38AM
TigerEye wrote:
Was about to say he forgot to mention that both sisters would be pre-teens and of different species...
on June 26,2013 | 09:58AM
TigerEye wrote:
...And when it does "work out just fine" and your biga-polygamist fantasies are not realized your dire predictions will be conveniently forgotten.
on June 26,2013 | 10:18AM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
You should change your screen name to "lacksreason"
on June 26,2013 | 11:40AM
soundofreason wrote:
What? You mean it's not ALLLLLLLL good? That's awful closed minded of you. Conveniently close minded. Sounds like I've crossed YOUR line. And you fault me for having one?
on June 26,2013 | 07:31PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Not for your sisters.
on June 26,2013 | 11:07PM
false wrote:
downtowngreen: They are now legal, but they are not the same.
on June 26,2013 | 08:15AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Same old rhetoric they used during the civil rights era and beyond. A generation from now same sex marriage will be about as controversial as inter-racial marriage is today.
on June 26,2013 | 12:34PM
Kuniarr wrote:
A guy "marrying" another guy or a gal marrying another gal??? It's unnatural. Like having two heads is unnatural. Relations between persons of the same gender is unnatural, bizarre. Unnatural because such relations between man and man and woman and woman is really against Nature.
on June 26,2013 | 02:47PM
honokai wrote:
A reasoned approach entails respecting that people hold different individual and religious views while at the same time understanding that in the eyes of the government everyone should be treated equal. For those that believe marriage should only be between a man in a woman, you can still believe that while at the same time believe that people should be treated fairly by the government. You can reconcile these beliefs. And congratulations to those who fought so hard for equal treatment under the law.
on June 26,2013 | 06:40AM
false wrote:
honokai: The outragous century old federal laws against marrying more than on person must now be repealed. We all must have equality under the law.
on June 26,2013 | 08:18AM
Fred01 wrote:
Stupid comment as usual from you. Doesn't even make sense.
on June 26,2013 | 10:36AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
Of course the Federal Govt. treats single tax payers the same a Married , right? Pity.
on June 26,2013 | 12:26PM
thos wrote:
This is a disaster for all the illegitimate children who will be brought forth by hetero sexuals who everyday are being bombarded with propaganda that the once honorable institute of marriage can be dodged with no consequences as they shack up in ever increasing numbers. This is but a continuation of the war on children we have been waging for decades.
on June 26,2013 | 06:50AM
BRock wrote:
What a strange comment.
on June 26,2013 | 08:05AM
thos wrote:
It DOES require an activity known as thinking - the cognitively challenged need not apply.
on June 26,2013 | 04:29PM
ghstar wrote:
What nonsense. Heterosexuals have been doing just fine with having children out of wedlock, divorce, adultery, etc. for a long time. There is no link between that behavior and DOMA. DOMA was a conservative Christian charade and unconstitutional from day one, no matter how the congress tried to dress it up.
on June 26,2013 | 08:33AM
thos wrote:
There is indeed a link. The more we make a mockery of marriage - hetero and homosexuals alike - the more children are deprived of a chance of a stable and strong family home in which to grow up and achieve their potential. The idea that out of wedlock birth, skyrocketing divorce rate, adultery, &c. is "doing just fine" for CHILDREN is a nothing less than a rank obscenity.
on June 26,2013 | 04:27PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Wow you are in need of serious mental help.
on June 26,2013 | 11:41AM
thos wrote:
You would seem to be an unlikely source of that help, given your tendency to rush to judgment.
on June 26,2013 | 04:31PM
RichardCory wrote:
My goodness, do you mean to tell me that the war on children has been going on for DECADES? Why haven't we won yet? I mean, how much can they really fight back? They're children for chrissake!
on June 26,2013 | 12:13PM
thos wrote:
It has been going on since the post war cry baby boom cohort took as their curriculum vital "If it feeeeeeeeeels good, do it .... and to hell with the price OTHERS have to pay for reckless behavior.
on June 26,2013 | 04:35PM
Bdpapa wrote:
This is gonna be expensive.
on June 26,2013 | 07:32AM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Why you going to a lot of same-sex marriages? Otherwise you will not even notice.
on June 26,2013 | 11:42AM
engineersoldier wrote:
Great day for equality and America.
on June 26,2013 | 07:50AM
soundofreason wrote:
Indeed. Let the moral decline continue.
on June 26,2013 | 07:33PM
blackmurano wrote:
Do not believe the liberal media reports suggesting same-sex marriage is now the law of land. It is not. The court did not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. All the court said that in states that allow it, those couples cannot be denied federal benefits. In California, the Supreme Court punted, finding it has no way to rule due to a technicality on standing or the right to sue. For those of us who believe marriage is between a man and woman, today is a clarion call to redouble our efforts.
on June 26,2013 | 07:54AM
pakeheat wrote:
You are so correct blackmurano
on June 26,2013 | 12:13PM
Anonymous wrote:
sgsorensen: Now we can move forward to legally marrying more than one partner. Can we count on your help.
on June 26,2013 | 08:14AM
sgsorensen wrote:
Don't try to make this into a ridiculous argument. This is about two consenting adults, not an adult and a chair, or a dog, blah blah blah. Go sell crazy somewhere else!
on June 26,2013 | 09:07AM
false wrote:
sgsorensen: This is not a ridiculous argument. I have 3 friends that are in a committed relationship. Why can't they be legally recognized?
on June 26,2013 | 12:00PM
IAmSane wrote:
I think you might have misread his comment.
on June 26,2013 | 01:06PM
soundofreason wrote:
Oh, so THREE consenting adults doesn't cut YOUR mustard.
on June 26,2013 | 07:35PM
cojef wrote:
Great! Now the issue of number of wives will be debated and the Mormans and Muslims will take their turns soliciting decisions from the Supreme Court on religious freedom for all religions. Open the floodgates to more entitlements for children from these unions. How about that?
on June 26,2013 | 08:21AM
sgsorensen wrote:
One of the things the opponents argue is about their freedom of religion being violated, so yes, what about religions that allow polygamy? BTW, learn how to spell MORMON and they do not practice polygamy. Ignorant much?
on June 26,2013 | 09:09AM
ghstar wrote:
Debate? No problem. I simply don't see why anyone should believe that the Bible (written by scribes and edited by the wealthy aristocrats who paid them) has any standing as the ultimate truth. God did not write the bible, men, fallible, corrupt, men with various agendas wrote the Bible. It is interesting reading, has valuable teaching and lessons, but that's it. Read it, but don't worship it.
on June 26,2013 | 09:24AM
hawaiikone wrote:
So what is the "ultimate truth"?
on June 26,2013 | 09:32AM
ghstar wrote:
I don't know and admit it. To "know" something requires evidence and proof; there is no evidence or proof that I find compelling that the bible represents anything other than what some people believed at some point in time. "Faith" does not require evidence or proof. You can "believe" something based on faith. That's fine with me. The US Constitution is the basic law of the land; it protects citizens' rights to believe whatever they want to and live the way they want to within lawful limits. Lawful limits that are consistent with the Constitution. DOMA was determined to be not consistent with the Constitution. I agree.
on June 26,2013 | 09:47AM
hawaiikone wrote:
If you're married, what "evidence and proof" is there that in fact you love your spouse?
on June 26,2013 | 10:33AM
ghstar wrote:
Not sure this is relevant to this argument. However, FYI, I believe some things based on faith (no evidence or proof required.) Other things require evidence. I'm sure you have similar beliefs and knowledge. The point of the discussion is that the US is a nation governed by laws -- laws that are consistent with the constitution. It is a nation based on freedom of religion. A lot of Christian people live in the US, but the US is not legally or constitutionally a "Christian nation." It is a secular society, not a theocracy. And although the bible certainly informed and influenced the nation's laws, it has no more legal standing than any other religious text. In establishing the DOMA, Congress attempted to pander the more conservative Christian voters by creating a law that was inconsistent with freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has called them on it and that is for the better.
on June 26,2013 | 10:55AM
hawaiikone wrote:
There will always be those of us who regret the loss of God's influence on our secular lives, yet realize the diluting of the Christian church is entirely our own fault. In an effort to remain relevant we continually compromise with a world destined for judgement. Hypocrisy is alive and well, but the time is coming when being "Christian" will demand far more than church attendance. Throughout recorded history man has felt himself capable of determining his destiny, yet what civilization or empire has stood the test of time? America's history is being written, with this generation officially turning away from arguably only the illusion of being a God fearing country, and only that same history will reveal the outcome of that decision.
on June 26,2013 | 12:04PM
daniwitz13 wrote:
You have only a one track agenda mind. You say you require proof and evidence. or you won't believe it. That our Laws require Proof. So can you offer or show proof that a person that says he is Gay, really and truly Gay? Any legal Law proof? Can you pick out a Gay in any crowd? Can you tell and give proof it someone lies that he is Gay? Can you prove and claim a person is Gay when he claims he isn't? I know and everyone here knows you cannot give that proof. BUT you believe it. Is it based on faith that that person is not lying? You are a hypocrite, sad to say. Pity.
on June 26,2013 | 12:48PM
blackmurano wrote:
The Holy Bible was written by 40 men selected by God Almighty. These men came from different educational background, from different centuries and cultural, and the awesome part of this none of them contradicted each other. What you read in the bible by the Apostle Paul, Matthew Luke, and John and others were the words of God as these men were moved by the Holy Spirit (God) on what to write in His Bible. With that said, God ordained marriage as one man and one woman, nothing else. He did this when only one male (Adam) and one female (Eve) were the only human on a young earth. So God has the designed for marriage and no one has the right to mess with it. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court made this decision to say same sex marriage is okay, God will have the last word on Judgment Day.
on June 26,2013 | 03:57PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
What has god got to do with it?
on June 26,2013 | 04:25PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You'll find out...
on June 26,2013 | 05:57PM
soundofreason wrote:
Don't tell him. Let it be a surprise.
on June 26,2013 | 07:41PM
soundofreason wrote:
"At times, sources have claimed there are as many as 60,000 Mormon fundamentalists in the United States,[2][3] with fewer than half of them living in polygamous households.[4] However, others have suggested that there may be as few as 20,000 Mormon fundamentalists[5][6] with only 8,000 to 15,000 practicing polygamy.[7] The largest Mormon fundamentalist groups are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) and the Apostolic United Brethren"

In denial..........much?


on June 26,2013 | 07:40PM
blackmurano wrote:
No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court judges ruled today, God Almighty will have the "last WORD at the White Throne Judgment for all unrepented sinners including the High Court Liberal judges. God of the Bible, our Creator, the one who formed each of us in our Mother's womb, ordained marriage as a "Covenant" for one man and one woman." God has not changed his Holy Word on marriage for he did say, I am the same yesterday, the same today, and the same forever. I changed not. Today's ruling is a violation of God's Covenant of marriage and a sin against God's standard for marriage.
on June 26,2013 | 08:24AM
kaleofkaneohe wrote:
Is there even ONE right that ANYONE in Hawaii now has (as a result of these Supreme Court rulings)? I don't think so.
on June 26,2013 | 08:36AM
IAmSane wrote:
Maybe not today, but maybe tomorrow. Of course what happened today will have an impact on the future of our state.
on June 26,2013 | 01:03PM
HLOEWEN wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on June 26,2013 | 08:44AM
kaleofkaneohe wrote:
What's absolutely right and wrong FOR YOU is what you decide it is -- according to YOUR (interpretation of) YOUR King James Version of the Holy Bible. Read it all, carefully, and take it from there. I don't think anything in it suggests you get to impose your views on anyone but yourself, though you certainly can offer your humble opinion and seek to INFLUENCE anyone who wants to listen. But you were not very convincing to me.
on June 26,2013 | 09:39AM
HLOEWEN wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on June 26,2013 | 10:18AM
TigerEye wrote:
No, but one needs a bible to tell him or her that there was a "first couple" to begin with and that they sprang up out of the ground in a mythical paradise complete with names.
on June 26,2013 | 10:40AM
papaya wrote:
"Let the one who is perfect, cast the first stone."...
on June 26,2013 | 09:33AM
hawaiikone wrote:
To finish the story of the adulterous woman, Christ then commanded her to "go and sin no more". He loved everyone, including the sinner, an example for us all.
on June 26,2013 | 10:55AM
Kuihao wrote:
The Hawai'i Legislature now needs to pass legislation to allow same-sex marriages here, so that same-sex couples living in Hawaii will receive the benefits of marriage under federal law.
on June 26,2013 | 09:50AM
false wrote:
kuihao: You can move to a state that permits it.
on June 26,2013 | 03:14PM
sunnyhi wrote:
Yes for equal benefits. No for gay marriage. Our founding fathers followed many of the teachings in the bible. Marriage was built on bible teachings and was never intended to be anything other than man and woman. Being gay is a sin. The bible says so. With that said, being gay is no greater a sin than any other sin. People who are drug addicts, alcoholics, adulterers, murderers, judgemental are also sinful. I am a sinner. We don't turn our backs on people with other sins so we should not turn our backs on gays either. They deserve equal benefits. They deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. They deserve to be loved and supported. But not marriage.
on June 26,2013 | 10:07AM
Fred01 wrote:
You are so dumb!
on June 26,2013 | 10:39AM
IAmSane wrote:
If you have a counterargument, state it. All you've been doing in these threads is calling people names.
on June 26,2013 | 12:58PM
Fred01 wrote:
Arguing with stupid people is a total waste of time.
on June 26,2013 | 02:15PM
false wrote:
fred01: debating people that have no stated argument is a total waste of time..
on June 26,2013 | 03:16PM
Fred01 wrote:
Not here to debate, only to point out ignorance.
on June 26,2013 | 03:38PM
false wrote:
fred01: So, you have no substance n the discussion other than to call people names.
on June 26,2013 | 04:16PM
Fred01 wrote:
Only the master-debaters.
on June 26,2013 | 04:52PM
soundofreason wrote:
Point out or........demonstrate?
on June 26,2013 | 07:43PM
Fred01 wrote:
You have to pay for that.
on June 26,2013 | 08:07PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Our founding fathers also believed in slavery and that women didn't deserve the right to vote. So should we bring those back? NO of course not. Sin has nothing to do with civil law. That is a religious fairy tale
on June 26,2013 | 11:44AM
soundofreason wrote:
That'll be the day. Women.......voting. Sheesh.
on June 26,2013 | 07:45PM
kaleofkaneohe wrote:
I liked some of what SUNNYHI had to say. It really is a theological "fact" that there are lots of sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth wrath, envy, ride -- these are known as the Seven Deadly Sins. We don't prosecute these as civil crimes, however, because we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Even in a world of theological "fact," we (as believers) are not to prosecute sins ("Justice is mine, saith the Lord . . . Romans 12:19) -- and we do not want to place ourselves ahead of God. The point is that there is a separation between our "beliefs" and our "governmental or civil" law. Jesus taught against divorce and remarriage in Mark 1:12 (and this is a church sin) -- yet the civil government actually condones divorce and provides for it, adjudicates it, records it. So you can, within your own beliefs find that something is a sin and still not oppose a civil right being extended by the government. So SUNNYHI can be at least half right and still be working on the other half And this is NOT dumb to me.
on June 26,2013 | 12:46PM
Kuniarr wrote:
May the Almighty have mercy on this US of A of ours. Relations between persons of the same gender is against the very essence of nature.
on June 26,2013 | 12:20PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Hey are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church?
on June 26,2013 | 12:36PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Same gender relations is unnatural much like anyone with two heads. It is against the essence of nature.
on June 26,2013 | 02:34PM
iansuen wrote:
Against nature? Homosexual behavior has been observed in many animals, not just humans. You try to sound credible (such as accusing me of being a pro-railer) but you don't.
on June 26,2013 | 03:15PM
pakeheat wrote:
Again you have made the same argument over and over again, do we need to follow animals? I thought we are human beings.
on June 26,2013 | 03:36PM
iansuen wrote:
Are you implying that homosexuals are voluntarily attracted to the same sex? This is not something that can be turned off. If you really are a human being, I invite you to show some compassion and understanding.
on June 26,2013 | 03:49PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Legalizing an unnatural behavior has nothing to do with compassion and understanding.

It is unnatural and not legal, for example, for a father to marry a daughter or for a brother to marry a sister.
on June 26,2013 | 08:03PM
pakeheat wrote:
I do have compassion and understanding that it is a SIN (HOMOSEXUALITY) I do believe that you folks should have benefits but please don't call it MARRIAGE, okay?
on June 26,2013 | 09:56PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Not true.

There is no escaping the fact that relations between the same gender is just unnatural.
on June 26,2013 | 03:44PM
iansuen wrote:
Go ahead and read an academic paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02735477. Out of the estimated several millions of species of animals here on earth ONLY ONE species is capable of hatred, intolerance, and prejudice: Human beings. Think about that carefully Kuniarr.
on June 26,2013 | 03:57PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Calling relationships between people of the same gender as being unnatural is calling what that relationship is.

In short, it is in the same manner that it is unnatural for a human being to have a relationship with an animal so is that of a person having a relationship with a person of the same gender. It is against the order of the nature of things.
on June 26,2013 | 07:26PM
pakeheat wrote:
Again, you call human beings animals, you are so funny
on June 26,2013 | 09:57PM
iansuen wrote:
Kuniarr, you aren't making the distinction between UNNATURAL and ABNORMAL. Learn the difference between what these words mean and try again. Thanks.
on June 27,2013 | 03:43AM
soundofreason wrote:
Agreed. Not "the norm". = ABnormal.
on June 26,2013 | 07:47PM
iansuen wrote:
He didn't use the word "abnormal" anywhere did he not?
on June 27,2013 | 03:43AM
thos wrote:
Homosexual behavior if unchecked may lead to an extinction event. Forget their glee at corrupting a once innocent word used to describe the care free, joyous romp of innocent children at play and instead recall their barbaric utterly reckless behavior in San Francisco bath house orgies by the hundreds that incubated a rare and initially weak virus until in such a hot house incubation milieu it morphed into a mortal attack on the human immune system. And have any of these reckless "players" EVER apologized for creating this public health catastrophe? No matter how "nice" some of those people seek to portray themselves or how pious their precious good intentions, the wreckage they have left in their wake and the threat they pose to the survival of the human race should be taken into consideration as a precursor to damage control.
on June 26,2013 | 04:54PM
Anonymous wrote:
Same sex marriage, kill babies and what';s next, kill all the old people because the government cannot afford to help them? What is this country coming to?
on June 26,2013 | 12:20PM
Fred01 wrote:
Hopefully silencing you is next on the agenda!
on June 26,2013 | 03:40PM
pakeheat wrote:
Sorry you can't do that, The Constitution says we can't be silenced, right?
on June 26,2013 | 09:58PM
DownSpout wrote:
QUESTION: I am, say, a straight 58-year-old widowed man living next door to a straight man of same age and similar circumstances. There is no love between us. Can we now get married, while retaining our separate homes, to "receive tax, health and pension benefits" that are NOT available to non-married couples?
on June 26,2013 | 12:43PM
IAmSane wrote:
I don't know, would you consider marrying a woman you don't love for those same reasons?
on June 26,2013 | 12:55PM
DownSpout wrote:
Maybe. For, as you point out, there is no “love” test. But, the fact is this: it’s not “gay” marriage as the headline reads, it’s “same sex” marriage. There is not, as far as I can tell, any gay “test” to qualify either. Two straight men, two straight women. It’s okay. Anything goes in order to qualify for those benefits, which was, after all, the basis for the argument.
on June 26,2013 | 01:51PM
Anonymous wrote:
I do not see why not since they want to redefine marriage it not about love it about same sex. Im sure it will cross a lot of folks mines
on June 26,2013 | 02:46PM
PMINZ wrote:
I just want to know (since my wife has passed on) when can I claim my Cats as dependents? When my Hawaiian Wife and I first wed we were both looked down upon, as a Dark Hawaiian and a Light Caucasian. Both sides parents gave us problems. And others also. Not taking a side on this matter.
on June 26,2013 | 02:20PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
What color are your cats?
on June 26,2013 | 03:01PM
PMINZ wrote:
Both are Short hair Tabbys and Grey, light Grey and some orange, Both Spotted on the sides with rings on their tails. Ages 13yr Female and 8 yr Male. Indoor only Cats. both loveable and healthy. One (Girl) from humane (Sp) Society one rescued from being born in a city drain pipe (Boy) Both rescued by my Wife (Bless her memory)
on June 26,2013 | 03:11PM
soundofreason wrote:
I see what you did there.
on June 26,2013 | 07:49PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Every local guy knows that marriage is between one man and one woman and the woman's immediate family especially her mother who always buts in and also the extended family which includes at least a couple of cousins in Vegas and maybe a distant uncle back in the old country and then perhaps a couple of the woman's best girl friends who feel free to make comments about the guy and criticize everything he does and.....

OK maybe I have some issues. But you guys know exactly what I mean. If the gays want this, they are welcome to it.

on June 26,2013 | 02:45PM
false wrote:
The tragic flaw in gay marriage is that they will always need a third person to procreate. Although some straight couples also require a third party, neither group will ever experience the wonder of a couple's genetic bonding. Not the same.
on June 26,2013 | 03:12PM
WKAMA wrote:
Are there as many gay people as straight people? If so maybe it's time to put a tag on ourselves. Suppose I "eye" someone I'm interested in for a relationship,or maybe marriage. After spending a lot of time and energy on this person you find out they're not what you think they are. Yuk!
on June 26,2013 | 03:53PM
Maybee the like of Mike Gabbard will finally apologize for the hate he as spread over 25 years in Hawaii againts the gay and lesbian community .Tulsi had the decency to apologize to the gay and lesbians but never Mike Gabbard ... He will quote scriptures ....he as taken in year 2000 $600,000 dollrs from the Mormon church to spread his message of hatred in the meantime is son BHAKTI is still in jail in Las Vegas arested for the 5th times in 2013 .. Mike and the cult he belong to have made money from the participating in organise hatred .... its time for gays to be recognise as equal ....its time to recognise that the Mike Gabbards of this world are now PREHISTORIC and should never be given again a senatorial job until he says I AM SO SORRY TO HAVE BEEN SUCH A IGNORANT AND SUCH A BIGOT
on June 26,2013 | 03:57PM
manaolana wrote:
You sound hateful.
on June 26,2013 | 04:39PM
Anonymous wrote:
Only one seem full of hate is you.Just because some one does not agree with you does not mean they sre full of hate. sad that the one thing you always stoop to. every one has the right to agree or disagree with this life style.. there will always be half who feel this life style is wrong and that there right, just as it the gays right to believe they have every right to there life style.
on June 26,2013 | 05:30PM
Anonymous wrote:
Banish Marriage all together. Divorce rates are just as common now days as is marriage. No sense.
on June 26,2013 | 04:28PM
Anonymous wrote:
When can I marry my dog?
on June 26,2013 | 04:28PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Marriage requires legal age consent, so it's not going to happen. Sorry to disappoint your incredibly witty thought. But, whatever the two of you do together in the privacy of your kennel is still up to you.
on June 26,2013 | 05:53PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
99 problems but the b---h ain't one.
on June 26,2013 | 06:28PM
soundofreason wrote:
3 human years = 21 in dog years. Certainly legal age.
on June 26,2013 | 07:51PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
I feel as sorry for you dog as I do for your sisters. Pity.
on June 26,2013 | 11:10PM
hawaiikone wrote:
There are those of us that feel sorrow for you as well.
on June 27,2013 | 07:07AM
Anonymous wrote:
you will save a lot of money when you divorce your dog can not ask for half of everything
on June 26,2013 | 06:58PM
Breaking News