Same-sex marriage is a basic right

As a Christian minister in the islands since 1962, I would like Star-Advertiser readers to know about the breadth of support for marriageequality from religious leaders of many faiths: Christian, Jewish,Buddhist and Hindu.

My understanding of a loving, compassionate God supports the basicright of all loving couples to have the full benefits of marriage.

This freedom is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and is consistent withreligious teachings.

The First Amendment clearly states that government shall not denyreligious freedom and that religion shall not manipulate government.

The proposed bill before our state Legislature has language that iscongruent with the Constitution. Every person can follow his or her personal beliefs without coercion.

Regarding the argument that same-sex marriage would destroy or harmthe family, it can be easily documented that the serious dangers tofamily life and marriage are found in areas such as conflictingvalues, money management and violence.

John Heidel
Kailua

Civil unions law solved equity issue

Marriage isasocial institution foundcommon to all cultures. It predates government in thenatural order;in the vast majority of culturesit isspecified asa monogamous union betweena man and a woman.

Ourgovernment’s role should be to acknowledge, uphold, support and respect this institution, not to undermine it.

I find it particularly offensive that this assault on traditional marriage is being done under the shameful, rhetorical guise of denied civil rights and claims of discrimination.

Isupport in principle the granting of same-sex partners equitable rights — was this notthepurpose of the civil unions bill? My suspicions are confirmed: withrightsgranted, the realagendaemerges to take downmarriage.

Do not be deluded that this war will end with agay marriage victory. By what objective moral standard can werefuse toredressdenied "rights" of polygamists, orrights of those desiringlegitimacy of othersexual relationships (that are bestleft unstated)?

There can be noobjective moral standard apart fromupholdingtraditional marriage.

Dave Beers
Waipahu

Law only addresses facilities, not status

Erik K. Abe apparently has axes to grind with the ACLU, but he is obviously not an attorney and should go back to the Hawaii Revised Statutes before he attempts to sow fear and paranoia ("Exemption doesn’t protect our First Amendment rights," Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Sept. 18).

HRS 489-2 defines a "place of public accommodation" and explicitly addressesonly the case ofa "facility." It does not address a social institution or legal status such as marriage, and anydecent attorney would refuse a case that attempted to conflate the two.

Even if an attorney tried to makean argument that marriage constituted a "place of public accommodation" according to 4892 (even on behalf of any male- female couplethat has been refused use of a church for lack of religious training, which happens all the time), a plain and simple reading of the statute would result indismissal ofthe case.

James J. Nelson
Kakaako

Conversation about iwi is a healthy one

Most of us are happy the issue of the "Forgotten Inheritance" is somewhat resolved and all concerned parties understand their views are respected ("Vow to uncover controversial mural cancels plans for rally," Star-Adver- tiser, Sept. 20).

Public art is a representation of our community’s collective spirit, culture and history and should accord the viewer his or her own sense of experience and opinion.

This iwi kupuna controversy will certainly bring more people to view this art work and decide for themselves. Definitely this conversation about art, culture and legal rights in our Hawaii is a healthy one.

Chu Lan Shubert-Kwock
Chinatown

Some people taking ‘sacred’ too far

David Shapiro hit the nail right on the head ("Getting rid of artwork takes protecting ‘sacred’ too far," Star-Advertiser, Volcanic Ash, Sept. 15). Gov. Neil Abercrombie, Mayor Kirk Caldwell and Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald should read it and provide copies for all those serving with them. All Cabinet members, legislators, Council members and justices making decisions that affect the public need to read it.

We can respect the dead, but not in a way that requires the public to pay $35 million for unnecessary delays in projects, that causes the state (the taxpayer again) to face unnecessary lawsuits for mishandling commissioned art, that curtails valuable research that benefits many.

Roy Benham’s article from a year ago ("Burial laws should be grounded in history and present-day reality," Star-Advertiser, Oct. 29, 2012) and Shapiro’s article are pointing the way in this area.State leaders should take note of the wisdom in their words.

Frank Lutz
Moiilili

Molasses spill was gross negligence

Hooray! Matson has quickly made the correct move by admitting wrongdoing and has made other promises with the molasses spill. But there are no guarantees in place.

Yes, they say they will not raise rates today, but no assurances are given. The state and city still have brought forth no legal sanctions against Matson.

If we drive our car 100 miles an hour down King Street, or jaywalk across any thoroughfare, we get ticketed and fined. If we throw our trash and yard clippings over the Pali, we get fined. These scenarios are intolerable by today’s standards. It appears that Matson may get off scot-free.

This disaster was not an accident; it was gross negligence. It is no less far-reaching as the Ka Loko dam disaster. Though no human life was lost, we still lost countless thousands of marine life and untold acres of living coral. All gone now. Auwe.

Joe Hilton
Aina Haina