Civil Unions Bill

[kalama boy]

Your right Rob, I agree.
I was simply stating where MY starting point is for MY beliefs.
DaVinci you said "an unnatural mutation, one that does not provide the host species with an advantage would certainly have caused that species to die out"
Thank you! My point exactly.
What could be more of an unnatural, disadvantage to a species than not being able to reproduce itself?

As Rob said, lets get back to the question of equal rights. As Ive said my thoughts on equal rights are that they should actually be...........equal.
When I first met my wife I couldnt just visit her in the hospital either.......she was not my wife yet. But we both have had the right since birth to get a legal document (marriage license) for this, when we were ready. Everyone should have that same right from birth to get a legal doc for that situation.
I couldnt receive my girlfriends (future wife) social security survivor benefits either. But I have had the right since birth to obtain a legal doc (marriage license) and change that. Everyone should have that right.
Landlord tenet issues, same thing.......etc.etc.etc. Everyone should have the rights from birth to obtain the legal docs necessary to make sure of it.
What is so ludicrous about that? We have legal docs for almost everything we do. This will take the question of civil unions, marriages, and any other combination out of the equation. This seems to me to be a simple solution of being able to obtain the proper legal backing to support your situation.
Of course homosexuals would then not be able to call their union a marriage, which to many, may be to great a cost.

[DaVinci]

Kalama boy: what I hear you saying is that you seem to be arguing in favor of the civil union bill. To paraphrase: at birth, we ought all to be endowed with the right to obtain a legal document at some point in our future which allows us equal rights with regard to partnership, yet without regard for the gender of said partner. Whomever we choose... right? If so, well said!

[Kapohocat]

"helper males" are shown throughout history and throughout all the species to be a boon to breeders to continue the species.

As simple as "gay eye for the straight guy" TV show or the many forms found in nature. To make my response specific to Puna, I need to thank my two favorite "helper males" aka Da Banana Boys for helping Seaside Bob and I! lol .... They are even doing the "set" for the wedding.... although they may have missed the breeding window as we are a little long in the tooth as the saying goes!

So if my favorite helper males (or anyone) want equal rights, I am all for it!

[AlohaSteven]

On 13JUL kalama boy wrote-
"As Ive said my thoughts on equal rights are that they should actually be...........equal...[civil unions]...Of course homosexuals would then not be able to call their union a marriage, which to many, may be to great a cost."

On 08JUL AlohaSteven wrote-
"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?"

My questions stand, and not just to be snarky but rather because I am genuinely wondering how one could acknowledge that equal treatment under the law is due but then embrace anything other than equal treatment as being acceptable.

It strikes me as completely outrageous that here in Hawaii heterosexual convicted arsonists, child molesters, and serial killers can marry (the marriage can even occur while they are locked up in prison) but the Governor vetoed a bill which would extend not even equal treatment under the law (marriage) but this second class citizen compromise of "civil union" to same-sex families. I would have to hold my nose and choke down the bile rising in my gorge to register with my partner as a second class citizen for a civil union, but we would do so if we had the option because the practical costs of private legal documents to cover even just the limited areas a civil union would help with are too significant. But no, we do not even get to be second class citizens with a civil union here in Hawaii, despite actually paying proportionally more in taxes than married Hawaiian heterosexual couples. In fact, as matters stand we have fewer rights and less equality than do convicted psychopaths and sociopaths in prison as long as the murderers and other sickos are heterosexual. Is this justice? Is this even remotely equal treatment under the law? Is this a good reason for gay and lesbian tourists nationwide to boycott Hawaii as a travel destination? (-Oh yes, that is indeed the conversation going on right now; people nationwide are furious at Lingle's veto and a majority of Hawaii voters put Lingle in the position to exercise that veto).

Members of the KKK are probably never going to "accept" African Americans in the sense of embracing them as equally valued members of their private enclave subculture (though the Mormons did an about-face on asserting lots of melanin in one's skin marks one as being lesser, so perhaps even the KKK will someday amaze us) regardless of whatever the law says, but it is their prerogative to be as bigoted and prejudicial as they wish within their own club (as long as their club does not choose to accept public monies). This is not about acceptance by people who despise one because of skin color, religion, affectional orientation, or suchlike but rather is about holding equal rights under the law in public venues where everyone's tax money paid equally (at least in theory) toward evenhandedly administering a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That which matters (and hugely so) is that the law requires equal treatment in the public arena. So, why I should be happy with a "civil union" instead of a marriage, just like anyone else who pays his or her taxes? I may not be happy with the civil union compromise which is supposed to be separate but equal (even though it is obviously not equal) yet not even that lesser option is available thanks to Lingle, those who voted for her, and those who did not get off their butts to register and vote at all.



)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

All creative work is derivative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

[DickWilson]

Ya, The Mormons did an about face, when faced with the loss of their tax exempt status. But they actively oppose civil unions here in Hawaii and anywhere else the subject comes up. Maybe every church that opposes civil unions should loose their tax exempt status, of course that would take a court decision, as our legislature is too ball-less to do anything. Can't even get some candidates for governor, "Muffi" for one to make their stance public. If they don't take a public stance no vote here. []

dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"

[kalama boy]

DaVinci, yes as I stated all along I am for equal rights for all.
I think the fact that I believe homosexuality is unnatural but still agree with equal rights for all, may have blinded some people to that.

Alohasteven, is it equal rights your after or equal titles?
As I asked in a previous post. Do you think the real issue with homosexuals is about civil rights and benefits or is it actually about the absolute acceptance by society that they think the word marriage may bring to their beliefs?

Is this really about FEELING accepted by society?

If so, you are setting yourself up for a disapointment. There will always be differing views and opinions on this... until the end of time.
You remember the old childhood saying,..... sticks and stones?
You will only feel like a 2nd class citizen if you choose to.
You will only be offended by someones differing views if you choose to.
I do not believe in homosexuality but I am also not offended by the fact that you do,... because I choose not to be.

Your question: is that a good reason to boycott Hawaii? I say no. What about all the gays and heterosexuals that support equal rights here, they would be adversly affected by that. Should I support a heterosexual boycott of San Francisco because there are alot of gays there,....not in my view. Why should I let MY FEELINGS negativley affect everyone else in that city?

One last question: Do you support polygamy or say a mother son couple and would you afford them the same equal rights that you would a homosexual 2 person couple? Or in your view are equal rights limited to only 2 people that are not related and thus delegating them, to as you say, 2nd class citizenship?

[KeaauRich]

Kalama,

This thread is about the civil unions bill, so you should stop injecting red herring questions about polygamy and mother/son couples. Neither is allowed in the civil unions bill that the governor vetoed (though opposite sex unrelated couples were included in the bill).

And yes, the civil unions bill would still have gay couples as second class citizens since its provisions would not be the same as "marriage" in all respects, but it's better than what we have now. And by the way, although I do not "feel" like a second class citizen, our government treats me like one and so I therefore *am* one in the eyes of the law.

[kalama boy]

This seems relevant to Hawaii because we are debating equal rights for all and even if you choose to ignore the discusion today we will still be having it (after the passage of civil unions) tomorrow.

For that reason take a step beyond your "thats a red herring, not in the bill" comfort zone and ponder the next obvious challenge to the law.

If you agree with equal rights and benefits for 2 would you also agree with equal rights and benefits for 3?

Mahalo for the thoughtful debate.

[KeaauRich]

OK, I'm done....

[Rob Tucker]

I'm done too.