Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Hawaii’

Another Angry Perspective on Lingle’s Veto of Civil Union Legislation

July 7th, 2010 1 comment

A reader and old friend writes:

Linda Lingle has failed in so many ways, my head is still spinning. When she voiced her commitment to protecting the sanctity of marriage, she failed to mention her 2 divorces.  She failed to fulfill her 2006 campaign promise to not veto legislation on same sex marriage.  She failed as an executive, unable to decide based on her own principles or the arguments of proponents and opponents.  She failed to see the consequences of not deciding on this issue.  She condemned representative democracy and suggested governance by referendum (or legalized “mob rule” in my view), making herself redundant. If the governor should not make a decision on this issue, why should she on any issue?  In so doing, she confirms her failure as a student of history.  Her former place of residence, California, is virtually a failed state due to the limitations that ballot initiatives have imposed on its governments and its citizens.

Don’t overlook the fact that the Hawaii legislation permits “civil unions”, not civil marriage.  Separate but equal is unacceptable when based on race; it is equally unacceptable based on gender or sexual orientation.  We are being worn down arguing with the insane and unreasonable.  We should not lose sight of the notion that we are looking for equality not something like equality.  Accepting something less in one state (Hawaii’s civil union) poses a threat to legal same sex marriage in other states.  It is a constant reminder that something less is okay.

‘Nuff said.

Emboldened in Hawaii

January 19th, 2010 No comments

Are civil unions the compromise they’re touted as? Not according to this story from Hawaii, where religious anti-equality opponents repeatedly discussed the sanctity of marriage in opposing — a Hawaii civil unions bill! The rhetoric was almost entirely religious, even though the bill has nothing to do with religion, even nominally. Counter-protesters also invoked religion in arguing for the bill. What’s left to say at this point. Maybe these three points:

  • For some, religion is too powerful to allow even civil equality for same-sex couples. They don’t want to look at the lives of their gay neighbors.
  • These counter-demonstrations show the peril in relying on religious arguments in civil discourse. The question becomes: Whose religion?
  • I can’t help thinking that recent legislative victories from the anti-equality forces in New Jersey and New York have emboldened the other side.

Expect this fight to go on for awhile. And don’t expect the Supreme Court to put a quick end to it.