BY RICK LAZOR – As House hearings progressed on Thursday on the “Marriage Equality” bill one fact became abundantly clear: this legislation is beginning to look a great deal like a “bill we have to pass so we can find out what’s in it.”
Thank goodness for the cogent and thoughtful questions being asked, both pro and con, by members of the House Judiciary and Finance Committees. One can only wonder how on Earth the Senate could have possibly passed this bill so quickly and so carelessly earlier this week.
Consider only a few of its troubling aspects:
• Language on parenting and children in the bill leaves the Hawaiian community with huge questions regarding native rights. Issues such as blood quantum, homestead eligibility and lines of ancestry become formidable.
• The divorce provision in the bill could be a potentially expensive quagmire, not to mention its unequal treatment of homosexual vs. heterosexual couples.
• For processing marriage licenses from other jurisdictions, the Department of Health shares that their policy for determining current legal relationship status will be to take applicant couples at their word  – on faith!
• The Committees were told by the Governor’s Office and the Attorney General that this bill is about marriage only and there is no need at this time to consider ramifications or outcomes in our schools or other public entities; those can be handled somewhere else down the line.
• In relation to churches, no one could definitively determine what is meant by “for profit” nor could anyone nail down who should decide. And yet “profit” is a primary factor in determining exemption status! The potential even exists at this point that some government entity would need to require a church to open its books for investigation.
• In considering exemptions for churches, there is no clear determination of what “religious education” is? Could it be a weekday K-12 school? Sunday school classes? Church preschool? And is tuition a donation or does it constitute “profit?”
• The Attorney General stated that no decision has yet been made on what the necessary indicia might be to determine what a “religious organization” is? Even the IRS already has such standards in place!
Throughout the morning, it became clear that according to the Attorney General and some other experts, the solution to all of this ambiguity and confusion was to just rely upon the “courts” later! Is not the point of well-crafted legislation to give the courts less to do?
Then there is the whole issue of “religious exemptions” in the bill that have troubled both sides from the beginning.
Those flawed and inadequate religious “protections” will stay that way as long as lawmakers continue to find First Amendment protections for religious practice by a GROUP of believers (a church or temple?) but seem unable to see identical protections for conscience in the religious practice of INDIVIDUAL believers. The U.S. Constitution guarantees both but some of our lawmakers join with many legal analysts in the U.S. today who assume that religious liberties of individuals can be trumped by other statutes.
There is a big difference between wrongful discrimination against a person due to sexual orientation and one’s legitimate choice not to support behaviors that violate one’s own conscience. It should not be assumed, for example, that a baker is discriminating against a homosexual based on their sexual preference as a person simply because that baker cannot in good conscience prepare a cake for an occasion (a homosexual “marriage”) that offends his or her sensibilities.
Would the Hawai’i Civil Rights Commission demand that a Christian who owns a bakery be required by law to fill an order for two people who request a special cake to celebrate the second anniversary of their adulterous affair? or that a florist arrange bouquets for a neo-Nazi rally celebrating the 70th anniversary of exclusion orders against Japanese citizens?
So if a baker is troubled by the prospect of using expressive gifts to fill an order for a cake for a homosexual “marriage” ceremony, how is that a violation of equal protection? On the U.S. Mainland, such conclusions have already resulted in lawsuits and harassment, even in situations where a business has otherwise always welcomed homosexual and heterosexual customers alike and even employs homosexuals.
In addition to the troubling aspects of the content of the bill, the process undertaken has hardly been an exercise in good statesmanship.
• There was Governor Abercrombie’s good-faith promise to the Senate President and House Speaker that this matter could wait until the 2014 session, only to have him later reverse course and call this Special Session.
• On his very website, in a “Frequently Asked Questions” page related to this bill, the Governor clearly deceives the public about the intent of voters 15 years ago in answering a question on allowing the public to vote.
• In crafting his shaky 14 October opinion that the Legislature may even consider this bill, our Attorney General conveniently strikes eleven lines of legitimate findings from previous law – also omitted from Section 8 of this Senate bill – pretending that the voters’ clear opinion in 1998 never existed.
• Then in the Legislature, there has been the arm-twisting and cajoling by a Speaker who had previously promised his House members that they were free to vote their conscience on this sensitive matter.
Whether a legislator stands for “marriage equality” or for traditional marriage, it is difficult at this time to imagine how a lawmaker could possibly see his or her way clear to pass Senate Bill 1 with all of its incumbent ambiguities and troubling omissions. It is not even good law. Â Amendments galore would be required to make it palatable.
This bill is not about collective bargaining or new school air conditioners or what color to paint Capitol bathrooms. It fundamentally changes our mores in these Islands.
Senate Bill 1 is not ready for prime time. It is essential that our lawmakers vote “no” during this ill-conceived special session. Then slow down this whole process, add a good measure of integrity to the mix and then do the hard work of analyzing this entire issue more thoroughly and honestly.
Better yet, respect the intent of the voters in 1998.
Even better still, give Hawai’i voters a succinct new amendment to consider next year that clearly states what the large majority of caring, fair-minded citizens have wanted all along.
Rick Lazor is a resident of Honolulu
Well written and thoughtful – thank you very much
Finally, a sane voice on this issue. I am particularly troubled by the dishonesty demonstrated by the politicians in dealing with the clear expression of the people in 1998.
I'm extremely troubled by the idea that some people think that the public should be voting on the rights of others, regardless of what the constitution says. We are all supposed to get equal protection under the law, and that includes gay people and their families. They deserve the protection of marital law for their families just as much as families that are headed by straight couples.
There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!
Aloha Keith-
My article is more about the glaring deficiencies of this legislation than what you are stating in your comment. If I were a lawmaker, I would have a difficult time putting my name to this poorly written bill whether I was FOR same-sex marriage or against.
But on to your comment – you are certainly entitled to your opinion that anyone should marry anyone as long as they love each other. But why do you limit it to adults? If you can redefine marriage so that it means almost nothing, on what legal basis can you deny a mature 16 ro 17 year old the same right? No, I'm not advocating that – I'm simply asking if you are considering the logical progression of the wide-open definition you are proposing. How far are you prepared to "evolve" on this? What's next?
Rich, you can marry a minor with parental consent. In some states, a judge must approve the marriage beforehand.
The reason why the Hawaii legislature will pass this bill is due to twenty years of convincing arguments put forth by the gay community. While heterosexual privilege makes sense to you, American jurisprudence does not work that way. Those arguments have fallen flat in federal appeals courts, especially the US Court of Appeals on the mainland. Jackson v. Abercrombie is very close to a decision at the 9th Circuit. Whatever "deficiencies" you think the bill has, there won't be a bill if the legislature does not act NOW.
Rick, putting rights to a vote is a dangerous precedent. Would you want to put slavery to a vote? Miscegenation? What if the religious folks in this country wanted to roll back divorce laws and invalidate the second marriages of people? Would you be okay with that? Slippery slopes go both ways.
If there is no actual difference between the state being considered and the state being "slipped" too, then there is no logical reason not to "slip" to the threatened state, and thus the argument is invalid. If there is in fact a difference, then the slippery slope argument is still meaningless as there is in fact something barring the "slippage".
In the case of a 17 year old, mature or not, they are not legally able to consent to any contracts on their own. Marriage, legally, is a contract. This is not "redefining marriage to mean anything", this is better recognizing all the families that exist within our society. Marriage still means a loving commitment between two people to share their lives and everything that goes with that. In fact, the legal redefinition of marriage has been done by those opposed to gay marriage.
There would have been no need to create the original constitutional ban on gay marriage in Hawaii(and every other state that has done it), or through DOMA, if the law had not already allowed for these marriages to be recognized. These changes actually started in the 1990's, they're a very recent addition to the law. You wanna talk legal redefinitions? Look in the mirror.
As you said: "you are certainly entitled to your opinion" What you state in the "article" is your opinion. Not fact.
You totally ignore the facts of establish law about marriage. The same will apply to same-sex couples. You seem to be upset with existing law. Change that.
Almsot agree, what about Ray Blanchard; best known for his research studies and controversial views on pedophilia …(per Wikipedia)
He has endorsed the "Men loving boys" idea.
I'll just end with his discrimination definition is insulting to the human race.
Same-sex marriage leads to marrying children the way straight marriage leads to marrying children. Straight marriage came first. so that's the real gateway. Let a man marry a women, next thing he wants to marry many women. Next thing he wants to marry their daughters. Next thing he wants to marry a goat. Outlaw all marriage!
the difference between allowing two adults who love eachother to marry and the possibility of it "evolving" into the acceptance of two teenagers deciding together is obvious.. Teenagers are minors. They are children according to the law. That law is passed for a reason The reason being that through trial, error, research and experience, it has been proven that minors are not emotionally mature enough to handle certain responsibilities/decisions which is why a parent/guardian needs to be present during certain situations. To compare the two is ridiculous. Two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry. There is absolutely no legal reason why this should even be a question. People can bring up the bible as long as they want.. but there is a separation between church and state for a reason. Religious beliefs should not play any part in legislature. And other accusations being made are absolutely barbaric. I would like to see written affidavits proving that
a) being homosexual makes you a pedophile
b) allowing homosexuals to marry will affect heterosexuals from being able to marry
c) children of homosexual parents will end up homosexual
d) homosexual parents can not provide a stable safe and healthy home, as a heterosexual couple can.
e) children of homosexual parents are always bullied more than children of heterosexual parents.
f) Allowing homosexual marriage will threaten the population in the future
These are absolutely barbaric. And yet I have heard many of these over and over throughout the testimonies. But you know what?
There are MILLIONS of children that were brought into this world by heterosexual couples who are now "troubled", bullied, and even worse… wards of the state because their parents couldn't take care of them.
There are thousands of homosexual couples willing to take them in and provide them a safe and loving home. I believe any child currently in foster care or a group home would much rather be "children of homosexuals" than be essential orphans, knowing the only parents they had gave them up.
The fact is.. there is no LEGAL basis here. There is no PROOF that allowing homosexuals to marry will affect this state or country negatively. and until someone proves otherwise, this whole debate is a joke. people, are people.
Blacks can now share space with whites and are treated fairly and equally (legally)– everything is just fine.
women can now vote— everything is just fine.
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry— everything will be just fine.
evolution happened. the bible has no place here in this situation. this is a right that should be granted. period.
Unfortunately all the blather about the neo-nazi thing and 2 year cheating thing is quite against the law already.
Sorry folks, I can't speak to what is in the law, not having read it, but as for just saying no, that's pretty much illegal anywhere you go. Your religion, or 'conscience' as they are now trying to call it, does not allow you that right. Some people (the Mormons until the 1970s) still had religious discrimination against black people. This never gave them the right to deny those persons use of a public business. It's the same trash.
However, since the US Supreme Court is about to rule that religion is okay in government (idiots) you may still have a chance there.
Love most of your post, but actually the racial religious discrimination is still going on in some areas: there is a Baptist church in Kentucky that will not perform interracial marriages, and another in Tennessee that flat out won't marry Black people.
The claims that the churches need additional religious protections are ludicrous because of the way our constitution works. If, even with the 14th amendment, they can still racially discriminate, there is no reason to believe that churches would not be able to discriminate against gay people. As for the individuals in their businesses(aka for profit entities) they don't have the right to discriminate based on race regardless of what their religion says, and this isn't any different. Their freedoms end where anothers nose begins.
[…] Senate Bill to Legalize Gay Marriage – Not Ready for Prime TimeHawaii ReporterThe divorce provision in the bill could be a potentially expensive quagmire, not to mention its unequal treatment of homosexual vs. heterosexual couples. • For processing marriage licenses from other jurisdictions, the Department of Health shares that … […]
I’ve had much of the same questions. And I still don’t understand why there’s that part that talks about a widowed mother marrying her son? What I’m the world is that about? Everytime I bring up my question someone jumps up with the predictable you’re being a religious bigot name calling. And I’m sitting here wondering why they assume asking questions is a bad thing? Last I checked gay people ask questions too… and I was amused to see it happened in the comments of this article too lol.
A widowed mother can't marry her son because they're already related by law. Current marriage laws only allow non-related adults to marry. This is besides the point that incestuous relationships have always been frowned upon, and the risk of inbred offspring is also a concern. Currently, 95% of society has the right to marry the adult of their choice. The other 5% don't. This bill removes that discrimination.
It's hard kris, seems like these bloggers here are Perez Hilton fans….if our opinion isn't matching the agenda, then it's labeled "discrimination"
Yet they can use the bathrooms, sit anywhere on the bus, vote, hold very important & well paying jobs in the media like Mr. Hilton, buy anything they want, travel anywhere, & have relationships.
God loves them too…..but they hate that. Just feel sorry for these bloggers.
"…but seem unable to see identical protections for conscience in the religious practice of INDIVIDUAL believers."
Does the author have any idea what kind of Pandora's Box that would create in society? He is promoting the idea that people (that have simply CHOSEN to become religious) should be able to discrimination against anyone they want (preferably gay people), wherever they happen to be at the time. In other words, they get a free-pass to discriminate at will. So the Christian gas station owner could decide not to do business with customers that have a marriage equality sticker on the back of their car. They could also do the same thing if they saw a well dressed gay couple heading for city hall to get a marriage license, claiming that if they provided gas it would be contributing to an event that is against their religious beliefs… or how about the Christian restaurant owner that doesn't want to serve the gay couple, because they don't approve of their "lifestyle choice". Do we really want to see "No Gays Served" signs all over the islands?
As for the baker that being forced to put butter cream frosting on a cake. I’d hardly call that a religious sacrament. Where exactly in the Bible does it say “Thou shalt not make thy cakes for sinners?” I’m also doubtful that the baker screens prospective straight couples to make sure that they haven’t sinned, before they agree to make them their wedding cake. So their position already reeks of hypocrisy. This is aside from the fact that these issues are extremely rare. In the state of Washington there has been one baker out of 7,000,000 people that chose to become the next Christian martyr. The vast majority of gay couples would not do business with an anti-gay baker. No one would financially support a business that doesn’t want them as a customer. So who exactly is the injured party here? The business owner or the customer that isn’t being treated like everyone else?
If a Christian engages in a business enterprise, he accepts the laws, rules and regulations of business. He cannot defy health regulations by quoting Leviticus, nor can he evade public discrimination laws by quoting Deuteronomy. He cannot discriminate against Blacks, Whites or anyone else. If this is too great a "burden" for him, then his recourse is to avoid the business world.
Comments are closed.