07-07-2010, 01:12 PM
Try to keep it Hawaii please.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator
|
Civil Unions Bill
|
07-07-2010, 03:36 PM
OK, lets try another angle all together. Hawaii need to take sex (and sexual acts) out of the equation, and just have civil unions for any two individuals of any combination of sexes who want to live together and join themselves financially. legally and all other aspects of interdependence. It could even be a mother/daughter, for example - just two people who decide to unite for their common good (and societal benefit- since now each partner has a buddy to take care of them, relieving society of that responsibility.
Marriage should be the purview of religions, not governments. If people want a religious blessing for their loving relationship, go for it. But if they want legal benefits, they'd need to do the civil union too. This removes all the polygamy, bestiality, Adam and Steve, and other red herrings from the discussion.
07-07-2010, 03:51 PM
The civil union bill that her stupidness just vetoed provided for just that. And in the spirit of keeping it Hawaiian, I wouldn't vote for her for shark chum, I like sharks.
dick wilson "Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
07-07-2010, 04:01 PM
I just saw that on MSNBC Keith Oberman named Lingle on of the Worst Prsons of the World this evening.
He noted her statement that "one person shouldn't be making this decision" - so she made the decision. Of course the legislature and she are paid to do this kind of stuff.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
07-07-2010, 06:28 PM
Hawaii gets more publicity!
Speaking of which anybody Somebody must have heard of the census worker incident. I'm libertarian but this is ridiculous- http://www.popfi.com/2010/07/06/cop-arre...espassing/ Other people want to make friends- I just want to make money. James Cramer
07-07-2010, 11:13 PM
Marriage should be the purview of religions, not governments. If people want a religious blessing for their loving relationship, go for it. But if they want legal benefits, they'd need to do the civil union too. This removes all the polygamy, bestiality, Adam and Steve, and other red herrings from the discussion. I'd agree the language involved is part of the problem, but its the other way around: if people want a ritual declaration in front of a faith community, go for holy matrimony. Marriage, though, is significantly different because it administered by the state and has legal bearing for all citizens regardless of their religious views or lack thereof. Holy matrimony (or, the holy sacrement of matrimony) is a religious ritual performed in churches and has no legal weight whatsoever as a contract registered with the state. Holy matrimony is simply a ritualized declaration of commitment before a faith community. The faith community can exclude whomever they want for whatever reason, as Mormons did with African Americans until 1978. By contrast, marriage is and has for many centuries if not millennia been a legal contract registered with the state which obligates the partners to mutual responsibility for debts and ownership of property, custody of children, etc. Part of the reason there has been such a flap about "gay marriage" (which is really just "law-abiding, tax-paying, adult citizen marriage") is either ignorance or deliberate distortion conflating marriage with holy matrimony. Right here in Hawaii and elsewhere the Mormon church has several times now used an outright lie (if gays can marry then churches will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples) exploiting this exact confusion in order to influence elections. This assertion is not true--as they well know--because marriages are a function of the courthouse, not the church; no church could ever be forced to perform ceremonies of holy matrimony counter to their beliefs. Besides, who would want to? If I want a fluffy ceremony in a church then I'd rather spend money on the services and facilities of folks who like me instead of giving money to folks who hate me. I do not particularly care whether or not this church or that church wants to exclude my partner and I from having a legally meaningless ceremony on their tax-free property. I do care about having equal rights. Equal rights, to me, means just that: equality. Nothing more and nothing less. "Civil unions" are not the same as marriage, even if the civil union bill language is configured such that only thing different between the one and the other is the name itself; it is still not the same, so is not equal treatment under the law. Why should John and Jane be able to opt for either a marriage certificate or a certificate of civil union, but Adam and Steve are legally excluded from a marriage certificate and may only receive a certificate of civil union (and not even that, as long as the Lingles of Hawaii continue to hold sway)? Let me put it another way: if a marriage certificate and a civil union certificate are exactly the same (equal) and I should not mind having the one and being excluded from the other, then why have exclusionary laws been struck down excluding African Americans from drinking at government water fountains marked "Whites Only"? There is a separate but equal water fountain provided and labeled for Blacks located just a few feet away, identical to the water fountain for Whites. Why should African Americans care if they are not allowed to drink from the same water fountain paid for equally with their tax money as the one Whites are drinking from? Well, if it is not the same exact treatment under the law--the same water fountain--then it is not actually equal treatment, now is it? So, tell me why I should be happy with a "civil union" instead of a marriage, just like anyone else who pays his or her taxes? By the way, with regard to the (I'd say) valid question... Most people seem to beleive in either a creator or that humans evolved from nothing into present form. Because homosexuals can't produce offspring (naturaly) they will eventually remove themselves from the gene pool and as in the case of say an old ape line, extinction. Do not the laws of nature dictate that only the strong survive to evolve and reproduce themselves? ...imho this is quite Hawaii-relevant given it is part of the current local issue, directly concerns and affects local folks, and appears to have been asked as a legitimate inquiry (versus troll activity). Nonetheless I appreciate that this is actually a huge bundle of collapsed distinctions and entire texts have been written on each, most of which is far beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll try to reply as briefly as possible to each component. Most people seem to believe in either a creator or that humans evolved from nothing into present form. -These beliefs (Creator and evolution) are not mutually exclusive, though evolution is generally taken to be a change over time from one preceding form to another (creation, by contrast, is something arising from nothing). Because homosexuals can't produce offspring (naturaly) -Actually, many homosexuals can and do produce biological offspring the old fashioned way (no turkey baster or test tube needed). Affection and sexual attraction shared with another male or another female does not preclude reproduction. The vast majority of gay men and lesbian women in more repressive regions overseas--millions of people--are actually married, with children. they will eventually remove themselves from the gene pool and as in the case of say an old ape line, extinction. -Even if some appreciable percentage of gay and lesbian people were so completely unable to function except with a member of their own sex, if there is evolutionary value to the trait (as there clearly is) then it would still persist in the population, as via being passed on by heterosexual brothers and sisters and only expressing in certain offspring. Do not the laws of nature dictate that only the strong survive to evolve and reproduce themselves? -Not really, not as "strong" is usually meant. It is way more subtle and variable than this, and has a great deal more to do with adaptability to changing conditions, goodness of fit, and not only initially reproducing but then nurturing and protecting offspring to the point they can successfully reproduce as well. Darwin's moths are a good example... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...skies.html ...but humans are a way more interesting case than moths because our behavior is so complex. In all sorts of ways both simple (e.g., gay uncles and lesbian aunts adopt and care for their dead brothers' and sisters' orphaned kids) and complex (divergent thinking leading to creative solutions which benefit the group) gay and lesbian humans benefit the population as a whole -but that gets into yet another topic. )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( All creative work is derivative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
Astonishing skill! This archer is a real-life Legolas and then some! http://geekologie.com/2013/11/real-life-...rs-anc.php )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
07-08-2010, 12:36 AM
Yes it's true , not a big deal. About her being a lesbian. Not a big deal other than she just had to go against her on concience to veto this bill.
And frankly I don't care what you call it. It's a right a protection from families that don't get along, it's rights for insurance this is not a case of (marriage) but a case of protection. We already have a domestic partner agreement that yes even straight people can file with the State. It's fifteen bucks. Until everyone that is hung up on religon and marriage as what everyones cornerstone to stop a civil unions law to take effect . Is too include all people in their wording and realize that this is about rights and protection. Nobody wants to step on religions toes. Religion that was created by man not god but the first form of goverment. Lingle hats off to ya , you must be so focused on the next venture in her own political career, that you don't have a concience to vote what is right. Most people, buisness and law makers support a civil unions bill. So Lingle if your out their lurking you should be ashamed of yourself. But we are watching if you think you will weasel your way into another office I don't think you will fool the Hawaiin people again, you ran as your platform for govenor at how bad our schools were and how the keiki needed so much more for the schools system. So lingle what have you done for the schools and the keikie, that is why we are ranked 49th in the nation for our education. You make a great politician Lingle you can Lie with the best of them! setting my soul free....
setting my soul free....
07-08-2010, 03:03 AM
quote: I was thinking this same thing! Take religion, and sexual orientation out of it for the state, and let the churches do the holy matrimony! Thanks for posting and Thanks A.Steven too!
07-08-2010, 03:19 AM
When you strip away all the faith issues of marriage, it's nothing but a contract. It really should be one item, Contract of Union which is the State’s legal recognition of the union. If a particular faith wishes to impose items to validate that Contract of Union under their faith's laws or beliefs, that's their business. But the faith's beliefs and requirements should not be the State's requirements.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)