HB 444 Civil Unions

[Guest]

I find it disturbing that so many people showed up at the capitol and have that much hatred in them to attempt to shoot down this bill.

Damon Tucker's Weblog

[DickWilson]

Damon; Hawaii doesn't have a corner on the market for narrow minded idiots, we just moved here from Utah, where they have actively opposed any such legislation in ANY state. We had hoped Hawaii was more open minded, sadly apparently not. I guess all one can do is pressure their elected official to support equal right for everyone, and pity the homophobic idiots with so little sense of sexual identity as to be threatened by equal rights for all.

dick wilson

[Jon]

The state needs to get out of marriage all together...


-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.
HBAT

[ric]

The states COULD get out of marriage if it weren't for all the tangled issues with health benefits for spouses, among other regulations. There may be some narrow-minded people out there, but I think the vast majority of people are indifferent to what anyone elses "lifestyle" may be, . . . but most opposition is to the "in your face" attitudes that push into society, including teaching and even promoting "alternatives" in public schools. Just like most gays want to be left alone, most straight folks do too. When the extreme fringe puts something 'in your face', many find it offensive (surely their intent), it's natural to resist.

[Blakeyboy1]

Damon - Thanks for bringing this up. I have been watching and have run across info on your site a few times.
DickWilson - Yeah I am in Utah now... Yikes!
Jon - Could not agree more
Ric - Oh jeez I have run into Ric again LOL. The issue is everything should be civil unions and marriage should be reserved for people's churches. There is a lot of plain old religion and ignorance based fear, hatred and homophobia out there.

-Blake
http://www.theboysgreatescape.blogspot.com/

[ric]

Blakeyboy, not everyone is against gays. I think most are indifferent except when it's pushed into their face. Regarding marriage, I guess everyone has been doing it wrong until now. We should all change everything 'til everyone else is happy.

[Blakeyboy1]

I think you are right Ric. I may be a little sensitive on this subject (did I mention I am in Utah??). It just seems that some people seem to foam at the mouth when this subject comes up. These are the people I was referring to.

BTW saw this in the Advertiser:

In one of the few dramatic exchanges, state Sen. Mike Gabbard, D-19th (Kapolei, Makakilo, Waikele), who opposes civil unions, held up children's books such as "Daddy's Wedding" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" and asked state Board of Education member Kim Coco Iwamoto whether homosexuality should be taught equally with heterosexuality in public schools.

Iwamoto, who is transgendered, responded: "I don't know if we teach heterosexuality in our schools. I'm sorry, senator, I don't mean to be antagonistic. But I don't know if there is a course on heterosexuality."


-Blake
http://www.theboysgreatescape.blogspot.com/

[ric]

I should note that while I am against any union that would FORCE employers to pay health benefits to a domestic partner, I DO think it's a tragedy that there is not a vehicle for domestic partners to inherit assets from their partner without tax consequence. Gay couples should be able to inherit from their spouse estate-tax-free, and any other tax benefit that a married couple would have. Conservative philosophy makes sense occasionally, huh?

[DickWilson]

The whole issue of opposition to HB-44 boils down to plain old homophobia. How does recognizing domestic partners affect the institution of conventional marriage in any way? It doesn't, this is just a smoke screen to punish one segment of our society for their lifestyle. It harms me in no way to allow domestic partners equal access to medical care and property rights. Nor does it affect the sexual orientation of me or my children. No one is forcing any business to offer health care only to domestic partners, only requiring that if you offer health care to married employee's it should be available to registered domestic partners. Almost every business that covers families requires a co-pay for family coverage, so why not a domestic partner, unless of course we want to punish them for "their evil lifestyle".
Blakeyboy1, my condolences.

dick wilson

[kani-lehua]

we are registered with the state of hawaii as RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARIES since 1995 and have been together since 1988. Recently, we applied for health insurance and were DENIED SPOUSAL/DEPENDANT coverage by Kaiser Permanente. However, Individual coverage was offered. We aslo applied with Summerlin (a group plan) and WERE offered the SPOUSAL/DEPENDANT coverage.

basically, one can enter into a reciprocal beneficiary relationship if all of the following applies:

1) both parties must be at least 18 years old.
2) neither party may be married or in another RB relationship.
3) the consenting parties are prohibited by law from marrying one another under chapter 572 (hrs).
4) consent to enter into a RB relationship was not obtained by force, duress or fraud.

for more information on the RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARY relationships:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/v...index.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/rbr_app.pdf

"chaos reigns within.
reflect, repent and reboot.
order shall return."

microsoft error message with haiku poetry