• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hawaii Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,420
Reaction score
16,256
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Specifically, the civil union proposed was identical to marriage only not under the same name.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,202
Reaction score
32,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Last edited:

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,202
Reaction score
32,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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! :D 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.
 
Last edited:

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I guess this isn't that surprising a view coming from a Texas man! :D 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,202
Reaction score
32,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,202
Reaction score
32,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,202
Reaction score
32,973
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 
Top Bottom