Hawaii Govenor Vetoes Bill Allowing Same-Sex Civil Unions

mail.com/Article.aspx/us/0/APNews/US/20100707/U_US-Hawaii-Civil-Unions?pageid=1

Yet another example of how gays are less than citizens :frowning: To have basic civil liberties revoked seems outrageous.

I guess it all depends on what one believes the purpose of marriage to be. I see militant gays using the most basic institution in any society as a political football. Good for the Governor of Hawaii.

[quote="NotCrazyDan, post:2, topic:204543"]
I guess it all depends on what one believes the purpose of marriage to be. I see militant gays using the most basic institution in any society as a political football. Good for the Governor of Hawaii.

[/quote]

Please re-read the article and re-post

The measure would have made Hawaii one of six states that essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Also I found this ironic :smiley:

[quote="lynx, post:4, topic:204543"]
Also I found this ironic :D

[/quote]

True, but I can understand the confusion. "Same sex civil union" isn't as much of a everyday news item.

That being said, there are some in the gay community who won't accept the civil union/domestic partnership route. A prime example is California. It's had same sex domestic partnerships "with all of the protections and rights of marriage" since 1999. It still has them.

Nothing was "revoked" as there was no civil union law in place there before the veto.

Also, remember that civil rights are not "basic" at all.

However, there are some basic rights we should consider. One basic right is that of children to be raised by both biological parents who love them and each other.

One of the better reasons for this was that civil unions did not have the same authoritative rights or tax breaks as marriages. Perhaps, if everyone were given the same basic rights under the law this whole issue would disappear…

[quote="lynx, post:3, topic:204543"]
Please re-read the article and re-post

[/quote]

I don't make the separation, knowing that if gay civil unions become widely accepted, gay marriage is the next step. They will not be satisfied with civil unions, because their goal is complete social acceptance and sanction of their lifestyle, and that can only come through acceptance of gay marriage.

[quote="SonCatcher, post:6, topic:204543"]
Nothing was "revoked" as there was no civil union law in place there before the veto.

Also, remember that civil rights are not "basic" at all.

However, there are some basic rights we should consider. One basic right is that of children to be raised by both biological parents who love them and each other.

[/quote]

It seems as if you missed the point of the article and are focusing on semantics. Do you feel that the civil union bill should have been struck down? This seems like a gross violation of basic civil liberties that all other non-gay Americans get to enjoy. If you want to segue this into a biological parent issue then post it in the Apologetics forums please. Lets all stay on topic.

[quote="NotCrazyDan, post:8, topic:204543"]
I don't make the separation, knowing that if gay civil unions become widely accepted, gay marriage is the next step. They will not be satisfied with civil unions, because their goal is complete social acceptance and sanction of their lifestyle, and that can only come through acceptance of gay marriage.

[/quote]

So you're advocating that gays should be denied civil rights because they might want more? LOL I hope we don't find the gay gene, otherwise you might be more for partial birth abortions. This all sounds kinda crazy NotCrazyDan

[quote="lynx, post:7, topic:204543"]
One of the better reasons for this was that civil unions did not have the same authoritative rights or tax breaks as marriages. Perhaps, if everyone were given the same basic rights under the law this whole issue would disappear...

[/quote]

Which "rights", or "tax breaks"?

The only differences In Re Marriage notes was

Domestic partnerships must have a common residence

Must be 18 or older

No "confidential marriages"

No relocation unemployment benefit due to domestic partnership

online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm

These seem rather minor, to me, and could be pursued legislatively, rather than push for "gay marriage".

The CA domestic partnership was pretty extensive in its benefits:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses....

leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

In my mind, the push for "gay marriage" in CA was more about creating a moral equivalency than equal protection under the law.

[quote="lynx, post:10, topic:204543"]
So you're advocating that gays should be denied civil rights because they might want more? LOL I hope we don't find the gay gene, otherwise you might be more for partial birth abortions. This all sounds kinda crazy NotCrazyDan

[/quote]

Social or societal acceptance and sanction of a lifestyle is not a "civil right".

[quote="lynx, post:9, topic:204543"]
It seems as if you missed the point of the article and are focusing on semantics. Do you feel that the civil union bill should have been struck down? This seems like a gross violation of basic civil liberties that all other non-gay Americans get to enjoy. If you want to segue this into a biological parent issue then post it in the Apologetics forums please. Lets all stay on topic.

[/quote]

The issue is pertinent anytime the discussion involves marriage. Since "civil unions" are legislated to simulate a legitimate marriage (thanks to scipio337 for quoting California code), any discussion of them necessitates discussion on marriage. This is especially the case on a CATHOLIC discussion board. Thus, you allowed it when you opened the thread.

I did not miss any relevant point of the article. It is not legitimate to grant the rights of marriage to anyone other than married people. All non-married heterosexuals also lack the rights of marriage. Why treat non-married homosexuals differently from them?

[quote="scipio337, post:11, topic:204543"]
Which "rights", or "tax breaks"?

The only differences In Re Marriage notes was

Domestic partnerships must have a common residence

Must be 18 or older

No "confidential marriages"

No relocation unemployment benefit due to domestic partnership

online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm

These seem rather minor, to me, and could be pursued legislatively, rather than push for "gay marriage".

The CA domestic partnership was pretty extensive in its benefits:

leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

[/quote]

Cool, i'm glad to hear you're for giving gays more rights through a civil union, because right now the benefits and rights under a civil union are not the same as a marriage which means that gays are not equal under the law.

[quote="scipio337, post:11, topic:204543"]
In my mind, the push for "gay marriage" in CA was more about creating a moral equivalency than equal protection under the law.

[/quote]

Yes.

[quote="scipio337, post:12, topic:204543"]
Social or societal acceptance and sanction of a lifestyle is not a "civil right".

[/quote]

Dan was literally arguing against giving gays a civil union, which is your right, because they might want marriage later. No one is preaching forced acceptance of gay lifestyle, but you must tolerate it. The tolerance of your lifestyle, if it doesn't hurt anyone else, is a civil rights issue plain and simple.

[quote="SonCatcher, post:13, topic:204543"]
The issue is pertinent anytime the discussion involves marriage. Since "civil unions" are legislated to simulate a legitimate marriage (thanks to scipio337 for quoting California code), any discussion of them necessitates discussion on marriage. This is especially the case on a CATHOLIC discussion board. Thus, you allowed it when you opened the thread.

[/quote]

Since the article isn't about marriage I don't think you should bring marriage into the equation. If you bring too many externalities into this you'll lose the forest through the trees. Since civil unions and marriage are two separate things, currently, lets treat them as such.

[quote="SonCatcher, post:13, topic:204543"]
I did not miss any relevant point of the article. It is not legitimate to grant the rights of marriage to anyone other than married people. All non-married heterosexuals also lack the rights of marriage. Why treat non-married homosexuals differently from them?

[/quote]

Why not give non-unioned individuals the rights as unioned individuals? Reasonable question. What rights do you think are applicable?

[quote="lynx, post:1, topic:204543"]
mail.com/Article.aspx/us/0/APNews/US/20100707/U_US-Hawaii-Civil-Unions?pageid=1

Yet another example of how gays are less than citizens :( To have basic civil liberties revoked seems outrageous.

[/quote]

No civil liberties were revoked. That's just grandstanding. The law would have created a new class of citizens and given them special privaleges. Those privaleges only exist, in one form or another, in five states in the US. That hardly makes them "rights", let alone liberties. Good for the Govenor of Hawaii. :thumbsup:

It’s very sad that only 5 other states have the moral fortitude and foresight to see that marginalizing and denying the rights of gays is a bad thing :frowning: There is no defense for the actions of the governor.

[quote="lynx, post:14, topic:204543"]
Yes.

[/quote]

You acknowledge a Fabian approach to societal acceptance and sanction of a lifestyle is the end result goal of domestic partnerships, or the false argument that its an "equal protection" issue.

[quote="scipio337, post:17, topic:204543"]
You acknowledge a Fabian approach to societal acceptance and sanction of a lifestyle is the end result goal of domestic partnerships, or the false argument that its an "equal protection" issue.

[/quote]

That in CA, a state in which I am home to, the act of pushing for marriage was more for the moral right to be married and let individuals decide marriage, rather than the fight for civil equivalency. While this may sound silly, and is just my opinion, the path to civil equivalency is through a civil union, and I feel gays would have pursued this option over marriage if they felt they were denied sufficient rights. Regardless, a civil union is not the same as a marriage and gays are denied equal rights even in states that allow for their union. Thus, they are not equal under the law.

[quote="Corki, post:15, topic:204543"]
The law would have created a new class of citizens and given them special privaleges.

[/quote]

Wrong. The law would make our community in Hawaii equal under the law. The current government institution of marriage sets heterosexuals in a special class of citizenship with special priveleges. The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" makes gay marriage the exception to the 14th Amendment. It's about as unconstitutional as any law can get. The Supreme Court will eventually have to address this and when it does I'm confident that it will strike it down and the States will have no choice but to legally include gay marriage.

Wrong. See Lindsley Test, City of Boerne v. Flores.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.