Gay Couple Denied UH Housing

[waynesb]

"the Supreme Court of Hawai`i has already held that the denial of any of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples constitutes discrimination in violation of the Hawai`i Constitution."

The above is from Lambda Legal's press release. I think that's the main point in this case. The state is withholding a benefit of marriage.

[Rob L]

Some years back, while the Supreme Court of Hawai'i was considering a case that asked for the right of people of the same sex to be married, a referendum was passed that amended the Hawai'i State Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Since then The State of Mass., the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain have enacted marriage equality. I wonder if there would be any support for a referendum to repeal the heterosexual only definition of marriage. That would solve the problem. Married housing would be for married couples, without discriminating.

Aloha,
Rob L

[JWFITZ]

Obviously people are much more interested in this matter than the ecology. . .

But ah well, thought I'd add a note

I was in the last months of my degree at a religious university, married, living OFF CAMPUS and when the school got word of that I had filed for divorce, the very nearly kicked me out and would have tossed my degree. NO KIDDING. This is a school that gets federal funds.

Sure, open it all up and to everyone of all genders.

those born male who are male and are attracted to women
those born male who are female and attracted to males
those born male who are female and attracted to females
those born female who are female and attracted to men
those born female who are female and attracted to females
those born female who are male and attracted to females
and those born omni sexual, who will hump anything.
and those born asexual-who need a different dorm entirely to not be distracted.

Gay is passe.

[robguz]

rusty, please substitute straight for gay in your posting and realize how absurd it sounds. Ok, everyone should keep their sexuality to themselves. Therefore if you are heterosexual, never mention the existence of your partner/spouse or children. When your spouse dies, refuse to take their retirement and social security benefits. Refuse to accept any health coverage you get from your spouse. Otherwise you are making a statement about your sexuality and shoving it in other people's faces and actually demanding that other support and fund your chosen heterosexual lifestyle.

Or maybe substitute left-handed or members of a particular minority religion. "Well people can choose to be left-handed, but if so, I don't think they should be allowed to be married." "People who choose to be Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim/Mormom/Jewish, etc. are fine, some are even my friends, but since Christianity is the overwhelming majority in this country only Christians should be allowed to marry each other"

I personally think that marriage should be a strictly cultural/religious term and since we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, there should be no government definition of such a thing, and it should basically be a gender neutral, and even sexuality neutral definition in terms of government recognition of partnerships. For example, two elderly widows who are not lesbian but choose to live together for financial reasons and friendship should be able to enter into a government-recognized partnership and get all the rights and responsibilities of current married partners.

Rusty, I pay taxes the same as you, and while I will never have kids to send to school or get other government services disproportionately like most heterosexuals do, why should I not be considered a full citizen? At work even though I paid for my health care and my then domestic partner's health care, I was also subsidizing heterosexuals in my workplace who chose to have several children. As gays and lesbians we are simply demanding full citizenship, nothing less! And that means being able to choose to marry our same sex partners.

[oink]

Do we want to travel this road on this forum?

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[McPuna]

"having saying this i do love all people. i just dont think all deserve the same rights as a married tradition couple."

Love for all ... rights for some .... WHAT A CROCK! Sounds like "separate but equal"!

Maybe what one should keep to themselves (in order to not be "trashed on") is one's own ignorant statements.

Hopefully those "gay friends" realize that with views like this, you are not at all a "friend" but someone who has "chosen" to put up with them under the guise of friendship.

Next time you consider the notion of "just keeping it (gayness) to yourself" consider the rates of teen drug use and/or suicide among young people who feel they cannot be accepted.

Not ONCE in ANYONE'S post, did anyone discuss sexual needs/desires ... that is your personal homophobic interpretation of the discussion.

My partner (of ten years) and I own a home a business. We contribute to the community of which we are a part - locally and beyond. Someday, I know, we will be able to "benefit" from the same rights as a "traditional married couple!"

Intelligence will prevail. Ignorance will be left behind!

[Guest]

A day after a same-sex couple filed a lawsuit accusing the University of Hawaii of discrimination for refusing to allow the couple to live in housing for married students the school says it will create accommodation for gay and lesbian pairs.

-------
Today in History:
The civil rights law, later referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act, is passed in the U.S., 1871.

[Kelena]

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.

[kani-lehua]

while the state of hawai'i does not recognized same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships, we do have reciprocal beneficiary relationships. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/v...index.html

and, some employers do offer health benefits to "domestic partners" as long as they meet certain criteria such as having a joint bank accout, joint land ownership and residing at the same address.

malia paha o lohe aku

perhaps they will hear

[Johnnycake]

Wow..I couldn't have said it better Glen.