It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hawaii's governor vetoes same-sex civil unions

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Hawaii's governor vetoes same-sex civil unions


www.latimes.com

Hawaii's governor vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending weeks of speculation about what she would do with the contentious, emotionally charged issue.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle acted on the last day she had to sign the bill, veto the bill or allow it to become law without her signature. The Legislature had approved it in late April.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage," Lingle said at a news conference. "I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name."
The bill would have granted gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.


along with that she also 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," she said.


In affect what she possibly believes by her standing is if there were few Black people back then, equal rights would not have been granted to Blacks as well. This two term Republican candidate has made her and her party position pretty clear with the mindset that follows for non-equal treatment of people.
I dont see any difference between her and the radical Muslim clerics who practice Sharia Laws and invade life of people.

Eventhough I am not gay/ homosexual I support equal rights for everyone, the reason I brought this news to forefront.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by name pending
 


So should I be able to legally marry 2,3 or even four women? I am just curious if you think equal rights for all should be made to polygamist as well?

Marriage is not a Right Granted in the US Constitution, it’s a state thing. To me it seems the easy way to get rid of this whole issue is to just get rid of marriage, most marriages end in divorce anyways, so might as well just get rid of them.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by name pending


"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," she said.



Is that not exactly what she just did? Hypocrite.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



No one is placed on a pedal stool, The US Constition does not mention marriage,

Those fools in the Hawaii state legislature tried to force something on the citizens of Hawaii, she wants it to be a state wide referendum... What’s so hard about that?



[edit on 7-7-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Those fools in the Hawaii state legislature tried to force something on the citizens of Hawaii, she wants it to be a state wide referendum... What’s so hard about that?



Because equal rights should never be put up for a vote from the pitch-fork weilding neandertals. If that were the case, we would still have slaves.

And yes, I said equal rights. It may not be in the constitution, but if one segment of society gets more benefits than another because the other is not allowed to, that is unequal. Constitution or not.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Whats hard about letting two people marry even if they are the same sex? It's called freedom, and America used to have a lot of it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



What benefits do married people get? I don’t get an extra check from the Gov, I get tax credits for having kids, but so do Gay people... I can add my wife and kids to my insurance.... And Gay people can to under certain companies and Insurance plans....

Marriage is not a right, Voting, Free Speech, Guns, trial by jury, these are rights...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pedroroach
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Whats hard about letting two people marry even if they are the same sex? It's called freedom, and America used to have a lot of it.


In all honesty, nothing... But you let gays marry you have to let polygamist marry, right equal rights and all?

And if you let ploygamist marry then you have to let animal lovers marry?
Right? Equal rights?

The point is where do you draw the line?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The question here is equal rights and the civil union thing is asking for special rights that do not exist.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Marriage is not a right, Voting, Free Speech, Guns, trial by jury, these are rights...


Marriage is a privaledge. Just like having a driver's license. Would you be ok with a governor saying you can not have a driver's license because you are of a different color? Sexual orientation?

I sure as hell am not.

As far as benefits. You have got to be kidding me. There are over a thousand of benefits that were automatic just when you said "I Do".


Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits.


people.howstuffworks.com...

So don't give me the crap about "there are no benefits to marriage".



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This isn't about letting people take multiple partners or marry horses who don't have any say in the matter, this is about two people who love each other asking for the same ability as heterosexual couples to cement their relationships in the manner they would prefer. What is wrong with that? Nothing. It doesn't impact on anyone elses life.

By vetoing this she DID make that decision, and so the proliferation of religion and politics continues. Like it or not, this is the version of Sharia that exists in the west to section off a portion of society who do not deserve this inequality.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


Your right there is no such thing as equal rights in America anymore. Its special rights and privileges



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The question here is equal rights and the civil union thing is asking for special rights that do not exist.


There are no special privaledges granted from a civil union that a married couple does not have already. Give me a break with the "special rights" crap. You already have "special rights" over a segment of the population.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Nutter
 



No one is placed on a pedal stool, The US Constition does not mention marriage,

Those fools in the Hawaii state legislature tried to force something on the citizens of Hawaii, she wants it to be a state wide referendum... What’s so hard about that?



[edit on 7-7-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]


The Constitution didn't mention interracial marriages either, but they were unlawful in a number of states until the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia. No one is equal unless all are equal and right now homosexual United States citizens do not have equal rights. It's time to get religion out of the politics of marriage. Your church doesn't want to marry gays and lesbians, no problemo - they don't have to, but the Clerk of the Court or JP or whomever is the local governmental official who solemnizes marriages should be.

And I'm still waiting for a good explanation from one of the religious wackos as to just exactly how letting my lesbian cousin marry her partner is going to have a negative impact on my heterosexual marriage to my husband.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


Your right there is no such thing as equal rights in America anymore. Its special rights and privileges


Of which you already have and are willing to styme other people's. Sad actually.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


The Governor cannot take away your driving privileges because of your color. Stop trying to make this about the color of someone’s skin... WHAT BENEFITS TO MARRIED PEOPLE GET... I KEEP WAITING FOR THE CHECK THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU TELL ME WE GET.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The question here is equal rights and the civil union thing is asking for special rights that do not exist.


There are no special privaledges granted from a civil union that a married couple does not have already. Give me a break with the "special rights" crap. You already have "special rights" over a segment of the population.
\


BS what rights do we have? Come on tell me what Rights I have that homos dont have please freaking tell me...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join