Powered By UNISYS
( Click to Close )
Maui    News & Information Hub
HEADLINE NEWS Weekly Newsletter
News

Governor Calls for Special Session on Marriage Equity

Share |
   September 9th, 2013 · 48 Disqus Comments · Featured, Maui News
Governor Neil Abercrombie speaks on marriage equity. Image courtesy still frame, USTREAM video, Gov. Abercrombie.

Governor Neil Abercrombie speaks on marriage equity. Image courtesy still frame, USTREAM video, Gov. Abercrombie.

By Wendy Osher

Governor Neil Abercrombie called for a special session to begin Oct. 28 to address the issue of marriage equity.

The announcement was made during a news conference that was streamed live on the governor’s website this afternoon.

“The reason for the session taking place prior to the opening of the regular session next year is that there are serious, deep, and wide ranging consequences, particularly in regard to tax law that have to be in effect by Dec. 31, if they are to be taken full advantage of, presuming that the bill has enough votes for passage,” said Gov. Abercrombie.

The bill, relating to marriage, aims to recognize marriages between individuals of the same sex in the state of Hawaiʻi, “and to address questions of equity—civil and otherwise—that have arisen in the course of the discussion over the past 20-plus years,” said Gov. Abercrombie who noted that the first instance of informed discussion based on actual legislation or judicial decision-making came in 1993.

“I feel that whatever one’s position ultimately on the issue of marriage equity is, that we can truly say that here in Hawaiʻi, everyone has had respectful attention paid to their views; that everything has been taken into consideration that could reasonably be expected from people that are operating on the basis of good faith and good will; and that Oct. 28 will provide us an opportunity to efficiently and effectively bring this issue to a conclusion, and that we can then proceed to other business of the state,” said Gov. Abercrombie.

The governor also provide insight on potential objections from those who may argue against the bill based on the first amendment, which prohibits a law in which a state imposes religion on an individual or group.

He called the first amendment paradoxical rather than a contradiction saying, “I’m hoping that they will conclude that their views have not only been respected, but incorporated into the bill.”

“We’re trying to keep from imposing one set of views on each other that would end up with conflict and confrontation; and we think that this bill achieves that delicate balance that respects the first amendment,” said the governor.

Sign Up To Our Weekly Newsletter 48 Disqus Comments
    Recommend This Article
    Related Stories

    Tags

    Comments
Editor's Note:Maui Now is an open forum and we welcome any views. However, please apply your sense of aloha when posting comments - remarks that are unnecessarily offensive will be blocked.

 
By publishing a comment, you are acknowledging that you are personally responsible for its contents.

  • Mad Luv

    Marriage equity or equality??

    • Theo.Olson

      Both actually. There is equity and equality in marriage. Great question!

  • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

    eq·ui·ty justice according to natural law or right; specifically :freedom from bias or favoritism

    • stand alone

      what the hell is that looks like a zombie. LOL……

  • stand alone

    Still a moron…..

  • DrDrew

    Do we not already have civil union options that are the same process as the marriage license…? Give the gay community full and equal benefits under civil
    union, allow the religious groups to keep their term “marriage”, easy
    solution, fair compromise for both sides

    • bucky

      Denying people all the rights that come with marriage is not a compromise. The federal government does not give the same benefits to civil unions as marriage. Your federal tax return requires you to identify your “marital status.” You pay a different tax rate based on that status. There are many other rights that are also not the same for civil unions. Additionally, who made religion the boss of civil rights? Marriage does not belong to religion, but to the state and religion should not claim it as theirs to own now. It’s really quite simple, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry one. If you don’t believe in religion, don’t be forced to participate. (Even though we are all forced to pay for religions now by supporting their tax exempt status with public services that they don’t pay into.) Everybody should have complete freedom to live their lives morally and ethically without somebody else telling them they should have to honor their personal belief system as long as no harm is done to others. Where is the harm done if two loving people want to get married? What is the big deal?

      • DrDrew

        @- Bucky, did you not read my statement fully or understand
        it? I said specifically “Give the gay community full and equal
        benefits” I did not say deny. I understand the current condition is not
        equal and my statement IS a pitch of compromise for both sides. I say
        respectfully in response, historically marriage is a ceremony originated in and
        by religion, This is a fact that is easily documented by secular scholars and
        non-secular scholars alike. Instead of taking a term that has always belong to
        religious groups of various beliefs, why not compromise and adapt this new
        “official” avenue of lifestyle and request to new terminology that will keep peace. The compromise I’m proposing is do give equality to those who choose to “marry” and those who chose to have “civil unions”, give same and full benefits. If your saying “No compromise in the area of simple terminology, then what is it your compromising on at all?
        The religious community is not trying to make a change, the gay community is,
        what I’m proposing is a solution for both sides to come together on a cooperative
        and appeasing solution, You simply want to stuff what the gay community is
        requesting down the throat of the religious community. Compromising and being flexible is how peace is made and is a solution. I do not see your perspective providing any compromise? If so, please do explain where it is. (Although you cannot see my demeanor, I’m in mellow gently chatting tones here, not angry)

        • Babalui

          Marriage is a tax status. Period. Dont think so? Check your 1040. There is no part on the form that asks if you have made your first communion, or first confession, or if you were baptised. It asks if you are married. If you want to change that fine, then have the federal government change the law to not use the word marriage. As long as thats the word for the tax status, then that is the word being used. Until then, gary marriage is reality and deserves a tax status equal to heterosexual couples.

          • DrDrew

            “Marriage is a tax status. Period.” … Wow? really? that is what it is and means to you? Marriage and or a civil union means so little to you, yours must be just wonderful..lol. Your comments here and below show how sarcastic people like you are when you can’t respond with articulate answers. Why does your mind undulge you to make a statement like you said previously to “101″ of “Go back to abusing little boys in the sacristy” … does that cross your mind often? Is that a normal response you have in dialogue settings such as these? Do you often visualize such things? not healthy.

          • Babalui

            Perhaps you overlooked all the NAMBLA comments from 101 as well as marrying toddlers. So, you should direct your questions to 101 as to whom has all these predilections.

            As to your other comment, when it comes to the law, yes, marriage is a tax status. The law doesnt care about love and sacrifice and devotion and in sickness and health. The law that gay couples are fighting for is in regards to equal status before the law and tax status is one part of that. Your strawman about “thats all marriage is about??” is farcical.. You know what the issue is, dont pretend you dont.

          • Theo.Olson

            This is mostly correct. Marriage is a tax status in the eyes of the law, which is what this is about. Marriage also provides legal protections and benefits under the law, and thus whether gay or straight, you cant have second class citizens in our constitution. This was tried during slavery days and it failed. You can see now that people are waking up to this realization. The days of treating gay married couples differently than straight married couples is coming to an end.

      • 101

        The federal government also does not give the same benefits to toddler rape as marriage. What’s your point?

    • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

      I think if we abolish marriage we would all be equal!

      • 101

        We’re ALREADY equal. We’ve been equal since July 4th, 1776. Our nation’s Declaration Of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Our Founding Fathers were some pretty smart dudes- more than half of them had seminary degrees.

        • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

          lol seminary degrees!

          • Babalui

            If 101 says it, it must be true. Unfortunately, its one of the mythical points of propaganda from the religious right like to spew with no basis in actual fact. But, I will indulge 101. Can you name the “24″ founding fathers that ACTUALLY had seminary degrees. I know you are counting as a “seminary degree” any degree from any university that began as a seminary. Harvard, for instance, started as a seminary in the early 1600s (along with Yale, Princeton and most of the other major colleges), but by the time the founding fathers went there it was a full university. The vast majority of them got degrees in things like law or economics, not religion. There actually are 4 out of the 56 who actually had seminary degrees. Can you name them?

            Nice try, but try again. Go back to abusing little boys in the sacristy.

          • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

            Let me try…

            Rerun,.
            Dwayne Wayne
            Thelma
            Shirley
            Mama
            Dee
            Roger
            Arnold
            JJ
            Bookman
            George
            Louise
            Florence
            Ritchie
            Joannie
            Mr. C
            Chachi
            Pinkie Tuscadero
            Fonzie
            Potsie
            Ralph Mouth
            Laverne
            Shirley
            Squiggy
            Lenny

            That’s all I can think of… Who are the others?

          • Babalui

            101′s got nothing. Just as I thought. Blow hard all the way. lol.

        • Theo.Olson

          Its funny how you bring up that “All men are created equal”. I guess it should have said, “all straight men are created equal but if you are gay, not so much.” But, unfortunately for you, it said ALL. And this go straight to the matter of legal status to marry. All men (and women) have a right to marry any consenting adult they see fit, whether the same or opposite sex. To do otherwise breaks the foundation of what this country was built on.

  • Babalui

    Its funny how churches think they own marriage, yet, anyone can get married without them. The state could care less if churches are involved in your marriage, yet, the churches want to dictate who can get married. Let the churches have civil unions if they want to differentiate themselves and let the rest of us get married by the state. Marriage is a tax status, thats it. Since churches dont have to pay taxes, but out of the tax status called “marriage”.

    • 101

      It’s sad that the motto of the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) is “Sex by eight, or it’s too late”.

      • Babalui

        We dont need your homophobia around here. Go back to the gutter you slithered from. Last I checked the news, catholic priest make up many members of your favorite NAMBLA organization. Religion lost its moral high ground many many years ago.

        • 101

          The word “homophobia” is a made-up word. Nobody is “afraid” of those who choose to pursue the act of homosexuality- just disgusted by it.
          And in response to your comment about NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association, who’s motto is “Sex by eight, or it’s too late”) is a homosexual organization- they’re YOUR people. You probably think that homosexual pedophilia is your “right”, but I oppose it, and I stand to protect innocent children from predators like you.

          • Babalui

            Take your hate and homophobia some where else. You are a disgusting person.

          • 101

            Wow, that’s a lot of angst you got there. Talk about “self loathing”, lol.
            From looking at your posts, I can see why the suicide rate amongst those who choose to pursue the act of homosexuality, is up to four times higher than for normal people.
            And that’s not even counting the ones that choose to play Russian Roulette with the AIDS virus, which certainly could be considered a form of suicide.
            Seek help.

          • Babalui

            Im not gay but I support their rights. You dont need to be gay to support their rights, just like you dont have to be black to support their rights.

            You are probably a closet child molester the way you keep going on and on about NAMBLA. The fact that you even know about that organization speaks volumes about what kind of person you are. I never heard of them until you brought it up and I googled it. Disgusting, just like you. Pure evil. If you dont like gay marriage, then dont get gay married. Its simple. Your homophobic views will not rule the day. This bill will pass and you will have to live in a country and state that recognizes gay rights. If you dont like that either, then I hear Iran and Russia loves idiots like you and share your viewpoint.

          • 101

            Babalui, when you claim not to be someone who chooses to pursue the act of homosexuality, I do not believe you.
            When you claim to “support” their “rights”, that doesn’t really say anything- your “support” amounts to nothing more than posting your hate screed on the internet, and the alleged “rights” that you are talking about, are mentioned nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.
            You call me an “idiot”, because you’ve got nothing- I’m not saying you’re an idiot, I’m just saying your wrong.

          • Babalui

            Your belief in my sexuality is meaningless. But I guess you are clueless about the equal protection clause. lol. Discrimination has no basis in the constitution. Period. I see you still havent answered the point below about all your “seminary” founding fathers you claim to exist. Im sorry, but 4 is not a majority out of 56. MOST of them were lawyers, and that number is 22 out of the 56. This country was founded by patriot lawyers, not a bunch of clergy from the seminary.

          • 101

            Your claims of your sexuality are meaningless. But I guess you are clueless about the equal protection clause. lol. Homosexuality has no basis in the constitution. Period. If you want me to take you to the wood shed over the 14th Amendment, knock yourself out. This country was founded by Christians fleeing religious persecution in England. That’s why they used words like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights” in The Declaration Of Independence .

          • Theo.Olson

            What would the Supreme Court know anyways I mean with Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas and the most recent United States v. Windsor.

            Its amazing how you claim the constitution has nothing to do with protecting gay rights, but yet here is all the case law you need to see to see that you are wrong. But, you are a typical right wing religious d0uche bag that doesn’t really care about facts. Just like your stupid assertion that the founding fathers some how were all seminary students in your previous post. And you seem to confuse the Mayflower of the 1600s with the founding fathers of 1700s. The founding of this country was based on TAXATION not religious freedom as you so handily got wrong as usual.

            If you cant at least use facts in your posts, please just stop posting about stuff you dont know squat about. If you really want to argue the constitution, you are barking up the wrong tree. You are like a professional strawman manufacturer that I deflate in court daily. You should go into business.

            Babalui, dont waste your time with this pos.

        • bucky

          NAMBLA? Really? How many gay people do you think really support NAMBLA? Why would you bring this up? It’s like saying that teachers support pedophilia because they’re around kids all day. (not true either!) It amazes me how the discussion about equality usually ends up with NAMBLA or some other perversion. Nobody wants to “Marry toddlers” (101), just two consenting adults.

          For the religious, maybe you disagree with homosexuality. That is your right and your right ends with your personal choice. Your rights should be respected by others, but you have no right to prevent others from their rights. The community at large shows enormous respect for all religion with tax exempt status, charitable giving, community outreach, free public services, etc… You need to show some respect back and recognize that there are many policies that are public law which your church does not agree with. You can choose to live above the law by which many of us do today by being honest, caring, charitable, and loving. We don’t need laws to tell us how to live if we choose morality, so why then, are you so persistent on destroying the lives of others in the name of religion?

          • 101

            Westley Allen Dodd saw things the way you do.
            The parents of 4 year old Lee Iseli did not.

          • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

            We should revoke the tax-exempt status of all religions and the Pacific Whale Foundation!

  • 101

    Everyone already HAS marriage equality- ANY unmarried adult can legally marry any unmarried adult of the opposite sex (as long as they have no parents in common), REGARDLESS of whether they choose to pursue the act of homosexuality or not.
    What the jack-booted militant homosexual regime wants, is SPECIAL rights. The next thing you know, they’ll want to have the “right” to “marry” toddlers, fire hydrants, cow pies, and their own right hands.

    • allenbam

      major A-hole going there 101! Major…

      • Babalui

        101 has the intellect of a toddler that he wants to marry.

        • allenbam

          yes coupled with major ‘latent curiosity’ issues..

          • Babalui

            Im pretty sure 101 is a priest/clergy who is in the closet with so much self loathing. He always jumps off the cliff when gay marriage is brought up.

          • 101

            Instead of you two expressing your hate through personal attacks, why don’t you post something to try to prop up your impotent argument.

          • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

            I guess they figure you aren’t worth the time.. You really have no arguments 101.. Just homophobia…

          • 101

            They take the time to post their hate screed over and over, but instead of posting something to try to prop up their impotent argument, they make personal attacks instead?
            That makes no sense.
            I think that the obvious answer is much more likely- it upsets them that what I posted is correct, but they have nothing to counter it.

          • Babalui

            Yup, pure homophobia. :D

  • the spdkapop observer

    all the lawyers were standing around with their mouths watering thinking about all those client they will get for gay divorce, all the gov’t workers were standing around doing nothing with their mouths waterering thinking about all the money the state will get on the marriage license issues, tour operaters were standing aound thinking ‘gay marriage in hawaii’ marking campaign and the money they will make off them, but behind them were the gov’t workers snickering becuase they no buisiness owners are evil and need to pay more taxes to fund the workers empty retirment accounts, the police were happy becuase to quote a county person “the police have more money than they know what to do with”…..
    and in one corner one person cheered for “equality”

    • 101

      Whiskey
      Tango
      Foxtrot

    • sonofaintnobodylikejesus

      It’s good for Hawaii tourism… We have lots of underemployed lawyers so it’s good news according to you!

  • Frank

    What determines deviant behavior? What are social norms? Is homosexuality deviant behavior in the context of the general population? Is homosexuality a social norm in the context of the general population? Before you respond, research and see what you come up with.

    • 101

      Frank, I have to commend you for what appears to be an intellectually honest question.

      What you are talking about, is about the difference between “right” and “wrong”, and to be specific, WHO decides what is right and wrong.

      On one side, we have “moral relativity”, which kind of cracks me up, because it disproves itself- if two people look at the same situation and come up with different answers as to what is right, one of them obviously has to be wrong. For example, predatory homosexual pedophile Westley Allen Dodd, thought that it was okay to kidnap, rape, torture, and murder toddlers. His “personal choice” was to use an electric drill to drill holes through their skulls into their brains in the hopes of keeping them alive as some kind of “zombies” that would not resist his sexual molestation. He also thought that it was okay to do things infinitely worse to them, things that I will not post here out of common decency.

      In the middle, you have those who think that right and wrong are somehow magically “determined” by the majority. That’s how we ended up with rich elitist pseudo-intellectual Democrat plantation owners, owning black people as slaves. That’s also how Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist (NAZI) party decided that 6 million Jews did not deserve to be allowed to remain alive. Any sane person would have issues with this.

      On the other side, we have those who believe that there IS an absolute right and wrong, and that it is not dependent upon what an individual might “want” or how we “feel” about it. Those people wrote words like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. If you choose to argue against that, you’d better pack a lunch.