Hawaii Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill

[digsbe]

FOXNews.com - Hawaii Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill

HONOLULU -- Hawaii's governor on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending months of speculation on how she would weigh in on the contentious, emotional debate.

"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day," Lingle said. "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

Hawaii's governor vetoed a bill that would have given homosexual couples civil unions identical to marriage. She did the right thing by vetoing this bill, and it should be up to the people of Hawaii to define marriage.

 

[texmaster]

She said voters should decide the fate of civil unions, not politicians.

"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day," Lingle said. "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

I agree however this was a civil unions bill not a marriage bill so based on that limited amount of knowledge I have on their proposal I would have to say I'm against her decision.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So which one is it - the voters should choose or the politicians? Everyone's opinions clash on this. I feel that this one issue is something that shouldn't waiver state to state, honestly.

The only qualm I have - what's the point of a civil union if it's the SAME as marriage?
Civil unions should be above dating and below marriage. . .that's the purpose of it.

So - either allow them to get married or don't - you shouldn't rewrite a facto just to skirt an issue.

 

[jamesrage]

She said voters should decide the fate of civil unions, not politicians.

"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day," Lingle said. "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

I agree however this was a civil unions bill not a marriage bill so based on that limited amount of knowledge I have on their proposal I would have to say I'm against her decision.

You do realize that civil unions domestic partnerships are nothing more than PC terms for marriage? They are terms used by politicians to weasel in gay marriage while pretending to cater to the anti-gay marriage side. If I call a pile of cow dung a T-Bone steak would you want to eat it? Hell no you would not want to eat because changing the name of something does not make it different. Calling marriage a civil union or domestic partnership does not change the fact it is still a union between two people with certain tax benefits,property rights,hospital visitations,medical decisions, and other stuff without having to have legal forms such as wills,power of attorneys and etc. to designate those things.

 

[digsbe]

Specifically, the civil union proposed was identical to marriage only not under the same name.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Specifically, the civil union proposed was identical to marriage only not under the same name.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[Deuce]

You do realize that civil unions domestic partnerships are nothing more than PC terms for marriage? They are terms used by politicians to weasel in gay marriage while pretending to cater to the anti-gay marriage side. If I call a pile of cow dung a T-Bone steak would you want to eat it? Hell no you would not want to eat because changing the name of something does not make it different. Calling marriage a civil union or domestic partnership does not change the fact it is still a union between two people with certain tax benefits,property rights,hospital visitations,medical decisions, and other stuff without having to have legal forms such as wills,power of attorneys and etc. to designate those things.

You're against giving people equal rights!? It's not even about protecting a word for you, it's literally about your thinking that homosexuals are not worthy of the same treatment as you.

"The voters should decide" is just an excuse to cover bigotry. The people of Hawaii did decide when they elected their representatives.

 

[texmaster]

You do realize that civil unions domestic partnerships are nothing more than PC terms for marriage? They are terms used by politicians to weasel in gay marriage while pretending to cater to the anti-gay marriage side. If I call a pile of cow dung a T-Bone steak would you want to eat it? Hell no you would not want to eat because changing the name of something does not make it different. Calling marriage a civil union or domestic partnership does not change the fact it is still a union between two people with certain tax benefits,property rights,hospital visitations,medical decisions, and other stuff without having to have legal forms such as wills,power of attorneys and etc. to designate those things.

I don't support civil unions that are specific for homosexuals absoltuely not. They should be for any people including 2 sisters that live together and the like.

But still separate from marriage.

 

[Deuce]

I don't support civil unions that are specific for homosexuals absoltuely not. They should be for any people including 2 sisters that live together and the like.

But still separate from marriage.

I guess this isn't that surprising a view coming from a Texas man! I hear in the south they do this anyway!
(look you set that one up too well ok?)

edit for content: I've never really understood the whole "protect MARRIAGE" deal. I'm not married, but I have to imagine that if I was, my love for my wife would not be changed by two dudes getting married. I can't imagine that I would be any more or less likely to want children or get a divorce or buy a bigger house.

 

[texmaster]

I guess this isn't that surprising a view coming from a Texas man! I hear in the south they do this anyway!
(look you set that one up too well ok?)

Set what up? That doesn't even make sense.

edit for content: I've never really understood the whole "protect MARRIAGE" deal. I'm not married, but I have to imagine that if I was, my love for my wife would not be changed by two dudes getting married. I can't imagine that I would be any more or less likely to want children or get a divorce or buy a bigger house.

The problem is you and many who think the way you do only look at how you would be effected if marriage was eliminated or devauled and not the society we live in.

 

[Erod]

You're against giving people equal rights!? It's not even about protecting a word for you, it's literally about your thinking that homosexuals are not worthy of the same treatment as you.

"The voters should decide" is just an excuse to cover bigotry. The people of Hawaii did decide when they elected their representatives.

I don't have the right to marry a man either.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

I don't have the right to marry a man either.

So you're all for sham marriages and not marriages based on love and support then, right?

 

[Deuce]

I don't have the right to marry a man either.

Way to read the thread. This discussion is about civil unions and the rights they confer.

 

[BCR]

I've always thought that the people against Gay marriage were against it because Marriage was "sacred". Now a bill comes along just giving them equal rights, just the same rights as married people but it wasn't marriage and they still shoot it down.

It's rather clear to me this isn't some "marriage is sacred" thing. This is a "gay people are 2nd to straight people and don't deserve the same rights"

 

[jujuman13]

You're against giving people equal rights!? It's not even about protecting a word for you, it's literally about your thinking that homosexuals are not worthy of the same treatment as you.

"The voters should decide" is just an excuse to cover bigotry. The people of Hawaii did decide when they elected their representatives.

Although I doubt that the electorate were presented with this particular question, directly.

My personal opinion is that Lesbian and other Homosexual people should all be put into special enclaves, such that they can live and do what they want without contaminating the rest of humanity.
But I am able to see that while that may be my opinion, it may not be the opinion of everyone.
IMO the Governor of hawaii (who probably does not have the same thoughts as do I regarding the disposition of these deviants) is of the opinion that her thoughts might be different from the electorates thoughts.
She is correct that this question should be put to the people.

 

[Deuce]

Although I doubt that the electorate were presented with this particular question, directly.

My personal opinion is that Lesbian and other Homosexual people should all be put into special enclaves, such that they can live and do what they want without contaminating the rest of humanity.
But I am able to see that while that may be my opinion, it may not be the opinion of everyone.
IMO the Governor of hawaii (who probably does not have the same thoughts as do I regarding the disposition of these deviants) is of the opinion that her thoughts might be different from the electorates thoughts.
She is correct that this question should be put to the people.

Why should civil rights of a minority be put to majority vote?
Why not dump this whole Republic thing and just go direct democracy? Who makes you arbiter of what goes to legislature and what goes to referendum?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

When people go against Gay marriage saying that it violates the sanctity of marriage, I think of tabloids and all those sham marriages. I don't really get how a loving partnership between two people of the same gender is below legal recognition, but those other relations aren't.

 

[TheNextEra]

My personal opinion is that Lesbian and other Homosexual people should all be put into special enclaves, such that they can live and do what they want without contaminating the rest of humanity.

How do gay people contaminate the rest of humanity when the divorce rate of over 50% belongs to heterosexuals?

 

[jujuman13]

Why should civil rights of a minority be put to majority vote?
Why not dump this whole Republic thing and just go direct democracy? Who makes you arbiter of what goes to legislature and what goes to referendum?

I do not now nor ever have claimed to be the arbiter of what does or does not go before the legislature or what goes to a referendum.
It might have been sensible had you undertood that when I wrote " My personal opinion " I was actually saying what is in MY mind, I freely admit (thankfully) I have no idea what goes on in your mind.

 

[jujuman13]

How do gay people contaminate the rest of humanity when the divorce rate of over 50% belongs to heterosexuals?

If you will but note I did write 'My personal opinion'.
Do tell how you manage to misinterpret the meaning of those three words?

 

[Navy Pride]

She said voters should decide the fate of civil unions, not politicians.

"The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day," Lingle said. "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

I agree however this was a civil unions bill not a marriage bill so based on that limited amount of knowledge I have on their proposal I would have to say I'm against her decision.

There are many states who were originally for Civil Unions who have changed their mind because of the left and a few militant gays...I myself was originally for Civil Unions but I to am changing my mind....

 

[The Uncola]

You do realize that civil unions domestic partnerships are nothing more than PC terms for marriage? They are terms used by politicians to weasel in gay marriage while pretending to cater to the anti-gay marriage side. If I call a pile of cow dung a T-Bone steak would you want to eat it? Hell no you would not want to eat because changing the name of something does not make it different. Calling marriage a civil union or domestic partnership does not change the fact it is still a union between two people with certain tax benefits,property rights,hospital visitations,medical decisions, and other stuff without having to have legal forms such as wills,power of attorneys and etc. to designate those things.

Which all brings up the obvious question of:

Yeah? So what? I thought the big worry that "lettin' them gays get married" was such a danger to us straight peoples marriages? So, I guess it actually IS about being able to continue to discriminate against them and treat them like second class citizens, eh? The bigotry comes shining though.

(As if it wasn't quite clear before, but it's nice to have it in the open.)

 

[Deuce]

There are many states who were originally for Civil Unions who have changed their mind because of the left and a few militant gays...I myself was originally for Civil Unions but I to am changing my mind....

What about militant christians?

 

[Jerry]

FOXNews.com - Hawaii Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill





Hawaii's governor vetoed a bill that would have given homosexual couples civil unions identical to marriage. She did the right thing by vetoing this bill, and it should be up to the people of Hawaii to define marriage.

This is a victory for gay rights as the law would have codified gays as second class citizens.

 

[digsbe]

This is a victory for gay rights as the law would have codified gays as second class citizens.

No, it would have made gay unions on an equal benefit level with marriage without calling it marriage. This is a victory for citizens who would be allowed to vote and define what marriage is in their state.