Hawaii House Sneaks Gay Civil Unions Bill out of the Closet and into Law with Surprise Vote

Hawaii House Sneaks Gay Civil Unions Bill out of the Closet and into Law with Surprise Vote

HONOLULU, April 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-family advocates were taken by surprise when the Hawaii House of Representatives unexpectedly revived and passed legislation that would establish same-sex civil unions and make them equivalent to marriage, nearly three months after everyone thought the issue was a dead letter.

The Senate bill taken up by the House (HB 444) "extends the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union."

Back in February, the House decided to take the legislation off its agenda for the rest of the legislative year in a voice vote that would have required two-thirds of the Democratic-controlled chamber to revive the issue.

However on Thursday, the very last day of the state’s legislative session, Rep. Blake Oshiro moved to revive the Senate bill. Instead of following the rules established for taking up the shelved bill, Speaker Calvin Say had the House take four votes to suspend those rules and pass the bill with just a majority.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10043004.html

Charning-Back door democracy and no a pun was not intended.

Sad, very sad. :frowning:

Back in February, the House decided to take the legislation off its agenda for the rest of the legislative year in a voice vote that would have required two-thirds of the Democratic-controlled chamber to revive the issue.

This is reasonable.

However on Thursday, the very last day of the state’s legislative session, Rep. Blake Oshiro moved to revive the Senate bill. Instead of following the rules established for taking up the shelved bill,

Right here is why the extremism scares me. Everyone is expected to follow these pre-established rules on how to handle such cases. Gov. Lingle should veto this bill. The fact that the rules were violated would be just another reason to do so.

Great! For too long lesbians and gays have been denied equal rights of others.

Why is there a wait, or even opposition, to those looking to establish equal rights?

[quote="lynx, post:3, topic:196976"]
Why is there a wait, or even opposition, to those looking to establish equal rights?

[/quote]

Equal rights means equal obligations to follow the rules of procedure.

[quote="sulkow82, post:4, topic:196976"]
Equal rights means equal obligations to follow the rules of procedure.

[/quote]

Totally not the case. Let me give you an example, people who practice Christianity have the same rights as those who practice Islam. A civil union should be equivalent, legally, to a marriage. What makes marriage so special that it should curtail the favor of the nation?

[quote="lynx, post:5, topic:196976"]
Totally not the case. Let me give you an example, people who practice Christianity have the same rights as those who practice Islam. A civil union should be equivalent, legally, to a marriage. What makes marriage so special that it should curtail the favor of the nation?

[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the fact that in order to get the bill passed and on the Governors desk, the Rules of Order were violated. People who want rights in society need to follow the pre-existing rules established for the running of society.

On to the example which you cite. The difference is the Islamic faith does not establish any rules which effect Catholics live by. It is the same the other way around.

To answer the question in your first post I would say this. There is no one unified answer that covers every opposition to civil unions. However, I would give you mine. My concern is that it is redefining marriage.

To the extent that they are just and moral, that is true.

If the rules are equivalent, as marriage and a civil union should be, then this is a non-issue. I see you’re upset by how they got their rights, but why should that matter in this specific case? Gays and lesbians were getting the short end of the stick on marriage benefits and this measure fixes that inequality. Maybe as a matter of practice one should reprimand the people but keep the law.

Marriage should be defined by the institution in which it used. If the state wants to have a generic definition that’s used in law that’s fine, but it shouldn’t stop another group from having their own definition and practicing their beliefs around that definition. Also, if it gives special privileges to one group of people it must extend those same privileges to others.

[quote="lynx, post:7, topic:196976"]
To the extent that they are just and moral, that is true.

I see you're upset by how

they got their rights, but why should that matter in this specific case?

On the legislative process side of the issue, this is a bill like any other. Therefore, it should be subject to the same procedures that any other bill would be subject to. According to the Legislative process for Hawaii, any bill that has been "shelved" requires a 2/3 vote to take it off the shelf to "reactivate" it to the docket. This was not done. If equality is to be true, then it must be adhered to at every step of the process along the way.

Gays and lesbians were getting the short end of the stick on marriage benefits and this measure fixes that inequality. Maybe as a matter of practice one should reprimand the people but keep the law.

Marriage should be defined by the institution in which it used.

This equality you advocate here is at odds with your statement about reprimanding the people. A reprimand is only ethical when it is an institution reprimanding its own members. If you advocate that homosexuals are a part of a different institution, then that institution lacks the ability to reprimand those outside of it.

[/quote]

[quote="sulkow82, post:8, topic:196976"]
On the legislative process side of the issue, this is a bill like any other. Therefore, it should be subject to the same procedures that any other bill would be subject to. According to the Legislative process for Hawaii, any bill that has been "shelved" requires a 2/3 vote to take it off the shelf to "reactivate" it to the docket. This was not done. If equality is to be true, then it must be adhered to at every step of the process along the way.

[/quote]

Not necessarily the case. If a revolution is just does it matter which laws are broken? On the whole I agree with you, and that is why the reprimand is necessary, not because of the content of the bill but the breaking of SOP.

[quote="sulkow82, post:8, topic:196976"]
This equality you advocate here is at odds with your statement about reprimanding the people. A reprimand is only ethical when it is an institution reprimanding its own members.

[/quote]

So does that mean the UN can reprimand no one or everyone :p I don't believe this to be a stead fast rule. If you are claiming either moral or legal superiority, and are justified, is not a reprimand appropriate for a deviant action?

[quote="sulkow82, post:8, topic:196976"]
If you advocate that homosexuals are a part of a different institution, then that institution lacks the ability to reprimand those outside of it.

[/quote]

Well then it's a good thing i'm not advocating that.

So you object to the bill being reactivated in the way it was? Also, by whose standards is a revolution to be determined as just? The government never (or very rarely) believes that a revolution against itself is just. By the people taking part in the revolution? The very fact that the revolutionaries devote their time and emotions to the cause means they are not impartial. There needs to be standards outside and above. Standards which the institution advocating the revolution does not have the authority to establish.

If you are claiming either moral or legal superiority, and are justified, is not a reprimand appropriate for a deviant action?

If you are talking about the unauthorized way the bill was reactivated, then yes a reprimand is authorized to that level. If you are talking about the advocating of the homosexual lifestyle, then it would depend on who is being reprimanded. Just as homosexuals don’t have a right to reprimand heterosexuals, so to an institution like a church does not have the right to reprimand homosexuals who are outside of the congregation.

Well then it’s a good thing i’m not advocating that.

:thumbsup:

[quote="lynx, post:9, topic:196976"]
...If a revolution is just does it matter which laws are broken?

[/quote]

Wow! Did you sleep through 8th grade civics class, or just skip school on the days they were teaching about Societies and how they operate? Societies avoid devolving into Chaos by having a set of rules by which everyone voluntarily agrees to abide. Those who choose to deviate from the rules are removed from society by imprisonment, not by 'reprimanding'. Those of us who were paying attention in school clearly remember our teacher explaining that if we all didn't voluntarily abide by the same set of rules, our civilization would quickly degrade to survival of the fittest. That is why those who refuse to play by the same rules (that the rest of us are voluntarily complying with) are removed from society, not 'reprimanded'. I know you were trying to liken gay marriage to our (U.S.) Revolutionary War when you wrote, "If a revolution is just..." but a revolution is not the existance or absense of a gay-marriage law. A revolution is an overthrow of a government. (That was explained in that Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary that sat on the corner of your 8th grade teacher's desk, for anyone to use, including you). Of course you talk big when it is someone else breaking the law (the legislators in this case). If you personally believed this was a 'revolution', both you and your homosexual lover would already be filing state and federal taxes as "Married" (even though your state doesn't recognize same-sex marriages) and you would be checking the box for "Married" on every one of the employment applications you fill out. But you don't. You don't because you are not willing to go to jail. You don't because you are not willing to lose your job. But yet those magnificent men to whom you alluded, those men who were in a REAL revolution, wrote down on paper (and each individually signed) that in the cause of their REAL revolution they were willing to sacrifice all they had. Those magnificant men involved in a REAL revolution wrote of their REAL devotion and REAL sacrifice for their REAL revolutionary cause when they wrote, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Like I said Lynux, when it's other people breaking the law, you talk big. What are you willing to sacrifice for your cause? Your life? Your fortune? Your honor? Nope? I didn't think so.

[quote="lynx, post:9, topic:196976"]
So does that mean the UN can reprimand no one or everyone

[/quote]

Oh Lord, here we go again. Guess what else they taught in 8th grade. Yep, that's right! They taught all of us, those who were actually in class and paying attention, what the UN is and how it works! Weren't you paying attention? The UN doesn't 'reprimand' anyone, and the UN has no authority over anyone. The UN deals with countries, not individuals. But to humor you, the UN also does not 'reprimand' countries, and the UN has no authority over any country. I don't have the patience or the time to teach you what you are ignorant of concerning the UN. I would like to say that the UN is a little like George Orwell's Animal Farm, where the Security Council plays the part of the animals that said, "...yes we are all equal, it's just that some of us are more equal than others...". But, then you'd be asking me who is George Orwell and where does he farm?

-break-break-

On the generic topic of gay marriage (or any equivalent euphemism), I am in support of gays being able to join in civil unions that allow the same legal rights, tax privileges, and job benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. But it should not be called 'marriage'. It should have its own term (describing word or phrase). Attempting to refer to gay unions as 'marriage' is like trying to call orange juice 'apple juice'. My voice seems like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness each time I try to explain that 70 percent of the opposition to gay marriages is simply because you want to use the word 'marriage'. That word is already taken. Pick a phrase like "Solemnly Unitized", and work for laws that simply say that those who have been "Solemnly Unitized" shall enjoy the same benefits and rights as married persons. You'd make so much more progress, much much quicker. But no... your so stuck on having the law read that "orange juice" will now be known as "apple juice" you can't see that this is the roadblock that prevents any quick change. He who hath ears, let him hear...

On the topic of legislators breaking the law to sneakily pass a law that was previously shelved, the proper response is for the Governor to refuse to sign it. If the Governor becomes complicit by signing it, then I'm fairly confident that a lawsuit brought by the right party or parties can have that law declared null and void.

Yes.

This was left vague on purpose. There are good reasons, such as the American Revolution and Civil War. But this needs to be closely examined on a case by case basis. Even then, the answer might not be known for decades. At best one can ascertain their actions are for the greater good of society, and being left with no other option, must revolt. So, the qualifications of being just are not just benefiting yourself but all of society in the long run, as well as being left with absolutely no other option.

I’d be careful, that’s like saying every soldier supports the war. I feel that people can make a rational choice and still be passionate about something involving that choice. For instance, I don’t like taxes, but i’ll tax myself as necessary to ensure I receive adequate government services (military, police, firemen, teachers, etc).

:thumbsup:

In short, a reprimand for something out of a person’s control is always unwarranted.

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.