03-12-2008, 06:21 AM
Aloha Rusty,
I am not the least bit angry that you made your comments, but I think they deserve a response. I understand you feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You may feel that way for religious reasons, or because that has been the cultural norm. In many other countries, marriage is a civil matter. The state only recognizes the marriage if you are married by a clerk or a judge. You may still have a religious ceremony, but it is legally meaningless. It is important only to those who choose a second, religious ceremony.
To protect the sensitivities of those who are religious, I advocate that we adopt this system, so that legal recognition of the union will be provided while allowing for a religious ceremony for those who feel that is important. The problem with the whole “religious” approach to marriage is that we are leaving it up to the churches to tell us who can and cannot form a legal union. The geniuses (and I mean that word sincerely) who structured our constitution did not want the churches to dictate to citizens how society should be run. That is why they left Europe, where the state was the church. Decoupling marriage from its religious aspects may address your concerns.
With all due respect to the “marriage is a holy union” and therefore homosexuals should be excluded, I have to laugh. Is my relationship any less holy than the one that preacher-hypocrite Ted Haggard and his wife have (Haggard hired a male prostitute and used meth with him) or Senator David Vitter and his wife have (Vitter hired a prostitute in the French Quarter, saw her several times and then bolted when he learned she had the same name as his wife – I mean a man has to have morals, after all!) or Eliot Spitzer and his wife have ($5,500 for a prostitute). All of these couples are still together. To date, I have hired no prostitutes. Not proud of it. Just sayin’. I certainly won’t let David Vitter tell me I should “keep it to myself”.
Same sex couples exist. In California, over 30,000 have registered as domestic partners. These are people who are willing accept all of the responsibilities of marriage, along with the rights, such as the right to inherit, and the right to seek partner support upon dissolution of the union.
It does society no good to marginalize them, or demonize them. Your comment that you could “care less about race only gender” was interesting. Same sex marriage opponents often say that, but one can’t help but wonder where they would have stood in 1967 when the Commonwealth of Virginia tried to prosecute Mildred Jeter (a black woman) for marrying Richard Loving (a white man). At the time, the trial judge said:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
I think that those that think same sex couples should not be in legally recognized relationships would have sided with the trial judge in this case.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and struck down Virginia’s law prohibiting people of different races to marry. Later, Mildred Loving said the following:
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving [the name of her case], and loving, are all about.”
As for “forcing it on the public”, I don’t think anyone is doing that, anymore than a straight couple forces a particular view on me simply by appearing in public as a couple. Of course, heated demonstrations of affection should take place outside of public view (except perhaps at Kehena and parts of Kalani), but that applies to everyone, not just same sex couples. So, we agree. Keep your desire to yourself. Especially your desire to subject gay people to what Thomas Jefferson called “The Tyranny of the Majority”. This whole country is built on the principle that we will not let a majority deprive a minority of its basic civil rights.
I think UH made the right move.
I am not the least bit angry that you made your comments, but I think they deserve a response. I understand you feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You may feel that way for religious reasons, or because that has been the cultural norm. In many other countries, marriage is a civil matter. The state only recognizes the marriage if you are married by a clerk or a judge. You may still have a religious ceremony, but it is legally meaningless. It is important only to those who choose a second, religious ceremony.
To protect the sensitivities of those who are religious, I advocate that we adopt this system, so that legal recognition of the union will be provided while allowing for a religious ceremony for those who feel that is important. The problem with the whole “religious” approach to marriage is that we are leaving it up to the churches to tell us who can and cannot form a legal union. The geniuses (and I mean that word sincerely) who structured our constitution did not want the churches to dictate to citizens how society should be run. That is why they left Europe, where the state was the church. Decoupling marriage from its religious aspects may address your concerns.
With all due respect to the “marriage is a holy union” and therefore homosexuals should be excluded, I have to laugh. Is my relationship any less holy than the one that preacher-hypocrite Ted Haggard and his wife have (Haggard hired a male prostitute and used meth with him) or Senator David Vitter and his wife have (Vitter hired a prostitute in the French Quarter, saw her several times and then bolted when he learned she had the same name as his wife – I mean a man has to have morals, after all!) or Eliot Spitzer and his wife have ($5,500 for a prostitute). All of these couples are still together. To date, I have hired no prostitutes. Not proud of it. Just sayin’. I certainly won’t let David Vitter tell me I should “keep it to myself”.
Same sex couples exist. In California, over 30,000 have registered as domestic partners. These are people who are willing accept all of the responsibilities of marriage, along with the rights, such as the right to inherit, and the right to seek partner support upon dissolution of the union.
It does society no good to marginalize them, or demonize them. Your comment that you could “care less about race only gender” was interesting. Same sex marriage opponents often say that, but one can’t help but wonder where they would have stood in 1967 when the Commonwealth of Virginia tried to prosecute Mildred Jeter (a black woman) for marrying Richard Loving (a white man). At the time, the trial judge said:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
I think that those that think same sex couples should not be in legally recognized relationships would have sided with the trial judge in this case.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and struck down Virginia’s law prohibiting people of different races to marry. Later, Mildred Loving said the following:
“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving [the name of her case], and loving, are all about.”
As for “forcing it on the public”, I don’t think anyone is doing that, anymore than a straight couple forces a particular view on me simply by appearing in public as a couple. Of course, heated demonstrations of affection should take place outside of public view (except perhaps at Kehena and parts of Kalani), but that applies to everyone, not just same sex couples. So, we agree. Keep your desire to yourself. Especially your desire to subject gay people to what Thomas Jefferson called “The Tyranny of the Majority”. This whole country is built on the principle that we will not let a majority deprive a minority of its basic civil rights.
I think UH made the right move.