[quote=Hawaii News Now]
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - With the stroke of a pen Gov. Neil Abercrombie made good on his campaign pledge to sign the civil unions bill into law.
"This singing today of this measure says to all the world that they are welcome - that everyone is a brother and a sister here in paradise," he said.
About 100 supporters of the measure witnessed the ceremony at Washington Place.
Eileen McKee and Deborah Cohn came from Maui wearing matching rings and looks of relief.
"What this means is I can finally have my friends, my family be able to give us a big cheer of being together," Cohn said.
"I'm so glad the governor invited some folks from Maui. That feels great too, and that he recognizes our relationship," McKee said.
A week ago the senate passed the measure, clearing the last legislative hurdle. A civil union gives same-sex and opposite sex partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.
"We have been disappointed so many times. I think people kept waiting for the other shoe to drop," LGBT Caucus chairperson Jo-Ann Adams said. "One person I think put it really well that I'm proud of Hawaii. We're back in the forefront again."
The state Department of Health will be in charge of processing civil unions.
McKee and Cohn plan a ceremony for the day after the bill goes into effect on January 1, 2012.
"We're hoping that the licensing bureau will get it together so that we can actually do that date. It's a Monday holiday. We've got friends and family already flying in," McKee said.
A University of Hawaii study estimates an average of about 300 civil unions filings annually over the next six years.
Abercrombie said civil unions gives equal rights to all.
"Here in Hawaii, we do not let our diversity divide us. It indeed defines us and this bill defines us," he said.
Hawaii becomes the seventh state to grant civil unions.[/quote]
[URL]http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14088074[/URL]
itʻs about time goddamn time. i hope other states pass civil union laws, 7 states isnʻt much but itʻs a good start.
also, iʻm glad linda lingle isnʻt governor anymore. stupid lady vetoed this bill last year.
[editline]23rd February 2011[/editline]
rainbows everywhere
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bFr2SWP1I[/media]
Worlds most fitting and relevant thread music [b]EVER[/b]
First Hawaii and then maybe the rest of the world
Someday :allears:
I love Hawaii and the people there. They're so laid back and relaxed unlike mainland U.S where we stress out everyday over life.
[QUOTE=Saxon;28256307]I love Hawaii and the people there. They're so laid back and relaxed unlike mainland U.S where we stress out everyday over life.[/QUOTE]
I'd totally move to Hawaii if they had seasons.
[QUOTE=Saxon;28256307]I love Hawaii and the people there. They're so laid back and relaxed unlike mainland U.S where we stress out everyday over life.[/QUOTE]
LOL. No, it sucks here. The 'nice' fat Hawaiians playing ukulele and welcoming you to the Island with a war 'aloha' only applies to tourism.
here's 80 percent of the island.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt4BOH6LjTU[/media]
Even as a strong Republican I support this. Civil unions are the best answer to the problem. It gives homosexuals equal rights under the law without causing problems with the more religious side by actually calling it "marriage."
Hope more states follow suit.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;28265093]Even as a strong Republican I support this. Civil unions are the best answer to the problem. It gives homosexuals equal rights under the law without causing problems with the more religious side by actually calling it "marriage."
Hope more states follow suit.[/QUOTE]
It is marriage. It's just being called civil unions till the cry babys get over it.
Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28265216]Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol.[/QUOTE]
please explain how letting gays marry means they're taking it over
[QUOTE=Glaber;28265216]Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather they just call it marriage. You still seem to have this weird opinion that marriage is of christian decent, and that you own the word to it. No, I'm pretty sure gay people can get married.
Good job Hawaii, we're proud of you.
Signed, Iowa.
[editline]24th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;28250479][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bFr2SWP1I[/media]
Worlds most fitting and relevant thread music [b]EVER[/b][/QUOTE]
I've got to ask, how does a man with such big fingers play a ukulele?
Good. Marriage in all honesty is just a word and in a secular context is simply a contract granting certain benefits to two people.
As long as there exists some form of contract that is an equivalent for any two consenting adults, I have no problem with marriage as a "concept" being restricted to a man and a woman because it literally has no difference than marriage and may be a compromise against the conservatives.What do other gays think? Is my view bad for any reason I want to know.
I mean this law just makes the only difference between the two other than who can do it a semantics issue so the only reason other than semantics is how religious gays may want to be "married" in a religious sense. But that can technically be ceremonially done without a contract couldn't it?
Honestly I'd rather their not be two different words for the same thing and just call it marriage but there may be no other way in conservative areas.
Anyone have anything to say?
[QUOTE=RBM11;28265517]Good. Marriage in all honesty is just a word and in a secular context is simply a contract granting certain benefits to two people.
As long as there exists some form of contract that is an equivalent for any two consenting adults, I have no problem with marriage as a "concept" being restricted to a man and a woman because it literally has no difference than marriage and may be a compromise against the conservatives.What do other gays think? Is my view bad for any reason I want to know.
I mean this law just makes the only difference between the two other than who can do it a semantics issue so the only reason other than semantics is how religious gays may want to be "married" in a religious sense. But that can technically be ceremonially done without a contract couldn't it?
Honestly I'd rather their not be two different words for the same thing and just call it marriage but there may be no other way in conservative areas.
Anyone have anything to say?[/QUOTE]
Yes perhaps in a comprising situation it is necessary to have two terms but altogether it is rather pointless. Marriage is not something that should be defined by the state, it should be defined by the churches. There are many churches that would gladly marry a homosexual couple. The bottom line here is a belief that current popular religions own marriage and that the government has the ability to define marriage based only on the popular belief. This shouldn't be the case. Churches also make a uninformed claim that if homosexuals are able to marry, that every church will be subject to having to marry homosexuals, which wouldn't be the case. The best possible solution here is that the government just defines marriage as between two consenting adults.
In another aspect it is similar to 'separate but not equal'. Let's call it something different so that we both can be happy, but not have the same access to the same thing. There is nothing fundamentally different about a homosexual couple vs a heterosexual couple. So then why should we have separate terms? Mainly just for the political aspect you mentioned, "Don't piss off conservatives any more then you have to". Why should a homosexual couple have to say, "Yes we are in a civil union" instead of saying "we are married". This effects forms, paperwork, doctors visits, census forms; all because we want to have a separation of homosexuals and heterosexuals for no real purpose.
It's the basic idea that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexual couples in their purpose or function that creates the true problem. It becomes government sanctioned segregation at this point. "Even the government knows that fags shouldn't get married or serve in the military!"
Civil union laws whats that?
[QUOTE=Jimpy;28266031]Yes perhaps in a comprising situation it is necessary to have two terms but altogether it is rather pointless. Marriage is not something that should be defined by the state, it should be defined by the churches. There are many churches that would gladly marry a homosexual couple. The bottom line here is a belief that current popular religions own marriage and that the government has the ability to define marriage based only on the popular belief. This shouldn't be the case. Churches also make a uninformed claim that if homosexuals are able to marry, that every church will be subject to having to marry homosexuals, which wouldn't be the case. The best possible solution here is that the government just defines marriage as between two consenting adults.
In another aspect it is similar to 'separate but not equal'. Let's call it something different so that we both can be happy, but not have the same access to the same thing. There is nothing fundamentally different about a homosexual couple vs a heterosexual couple. So then why should we have separate terms? Mainly just for the political aspect you mentioned, "Don't piss off conservatives any more then you have to". Why should a homosexual couple have to say, "Yes we are in a civil union" instead of saying "we are married". This effects forms, paperwork, doctors visits, census forms; all because we want to have a separation of homosexuals and heterosexuals for no real purpose.
It's the basic idea that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexual couples in their purpose or function that creates the true problem. It becomes government sanctioned segregation at this point. "Even the government knows that fags shouldn't get married or serve in the military!"[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree. I thought about the whole separate but equal thing as well. The difference is that in this case it isn't referring to separate public facilities where they'd be physically separated from married couples in this case homosexuals would literally be separated by a word.
We shouldn't bow to the churches I know but sometimes you need to make baby steps. It's replacing a shitty system with a much less shitty one. Hopefully one day there won't be a difference but in this case the separation is literally a word.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;28252933]First Hawaii and then maybe the rest of the world
Someday :allears:[/QUOTE]
Even the middle east? :allears:
[QUOTE=Saxon;28256307]I love Hawaii and the people there. They're so laid back and relaxed unlike mainland U.S where we stress out everyday over life.[/QUOTE]
Us native hawaiians are a lazy breed.
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;28266870]Even the middle east? :allears:[/QUOTE]
what a buzzkill
[QUOTE=Glaber;28265216]Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol.[/QUOTE]
You remind me of Marie from Everybody Loves Raymond
You think you're helping but you're really just smearing shit all over everything
"Obama's home state encourages gay marriage, will he bring it to the US?"
[QUOTE=Jookia;28267033]"Obama's home state encourages gay marriage, will he bring it to the US?"[/QUOTE]
he was born in kenya wat r u talkin about
[QUOTE=Glaber;28265216]Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol.[/QUOTE]
it's not the same rights if they don't have the right to call it marriage
civil unions do not have all of the benefits of marriage iirc
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28267592]civil unions do not have all of the benefits of marriage iirc[/QUOTE]
and even if they have all the other legal benefits they still do not have the very important benefit of being able to call it a marriage
[QUOTE=RBM11;28266802]Yeah I agree. I thought about the whole separate but equal thing as well. The difference is that in this case it isn't referring to separate public facilities where they'd be physically separated from married couples in this case homosexuals would literally be separated by a word.
We shouldn't bow to the churches I know but sometimes you need to make baby steps. It's replacing a shitty system with a much less shitty one. Hopefully one day there won't be a difference but in this case the separation is literally a word.[/QUOTE]
I mean I'm not against civil unions they are definitaly a step forward... but in the same way that DADT was a step forward. It's going to be marriage all around the board one day, but right now we are just grasping at straws till that moment comes.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28268254]and even if they have all the other legal benefits they still do not have the very important benefit of being able to call it a marriage[/QUOTE]
yeah, just "civil union'ed" does not have the same ring to it
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28268254]and even if they have all the other legal benefits they still do not have the very important benefit of being able to call it a marriage[/QUOTE]
Marriage shouldn't give any rights whatsoever anyway
Keep it as a religious ceremony for those who want a religious ceremony, make the rights come from a separate civil union
[QUOTE=Prismatex;28265269]please explain how letting gays marry means they're taking it over[/QUOTE]
The mental image you get when you hear the word. Tell me, what do you think of when you see a Rainbow, or read the word "gay"?
You know Before gay became the mainstream word for Male homosexual, you'd hear it use in Christmas carols and the Flintstones Theme song in the context of happy. But now if a song has the word gay in it, the context is homosexual.
In the case of the Rainbow, It use to be associated with Unicorns, pots of gold, and the story of Noah's Ark. But only just recently did it start getting used to represent homosexuals for their movement.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28265274]I'd rather they just call it marriage. You still seem to have this weird opinion that marriage is of christian decent, and that you own the word to it. No, I'm pretty sure gay people can get married.[/QUOTE]
You're the one with that keeps thinking it has a christian connection, Not me.
You know, If you're going to keep making that assertion, why don't you dig up the post where I make the connection? Because every time it seems that you're the one who thinks I believe that, especially because it's been documented to happen even before the formation of the Christian religion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.