Takai to Support Marriage Equality Measure

Rep. Mark Takai is a congressional candidate in 2014
article top
Rep. Mark Takai is a congressional candidate in 2014

By Rep. K. Mark Takai (D-Aiea) – There have been few issues that I have grappled with more than same sex marriage in Hawaii. I have wrestled with my thoughts, my values, my faith and what I believe to be the best way forward. The world has changed – and so have I.

Since the ruling earlier this summer by the U.S. Supreme Court on Article III of the Defense of Marriage Act, this issue has had wide-spread attention in Hawaii and throughout the nation. Indeed, as elected leaders from President Obama to our Congressional delegation in Hawaii have stated their own positions, I’ve listened carefully.


I have served alongside gays and lesbians as a member of the Hawaii National Guard. The leadership taken by the Joint Chiefs of Staff has emboldened me to be a leader for Hawaii. The Servicemembers who I have worked with during my 14-years in the National Guard have underscored the importance of treating everyone fairly. And time and again, our men and women in uniform have risen to the challenge as society has changed around them.

Hawaii citizens, like most Americans, increasingly support marriage equality for our gay and lesbian friends, neighbors, colleagues and families. And through my own soul searching and thinking about this issue, I have come to agree.

I have heard from faith leaders and congregants on both sides of this issue, and I deeply respect their own deliberations and the strong feelings that so many have with regard to the marriage question. I have come to my own decision after careful consideration, in concert with my own values and faith, and it is my deepest hope that once this matter is concluded, we can set aside whatever differences remain and work together for Hawaii.

But leadership is about making tough calls, and today I stand firm in mine: There are no good reasons to continue to prevent every Hawaii resident from exercising his or her right to marry the person he or she loves.

It’s time that laws in Hawaii reflect the Aloha spirit and I will join with the majority in the State House to pass the marriage equality bill.

Takai is a 19-year member of the Hawaii State House. Takai serves as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans, Military, and International Affairs, and Culture and the Arts. He is also a Lt. Colonel in the Hawaii Army National Guard. In 2009, Takai deployed with the Hawaii Army National Guard to the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

K. Mark Takai is a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard. Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not express or imply endorsement by the Hawaii Army National Guard, the Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense.





  1. He lost my vote for him running for congress. What a jackass. The legislature is hell bent on voting this bill through because they are afraid to let the people vote on it in 2014's election.

      • Tulsi Gabbard got the same negative threats on her stance for LGBT equality … and won by a landslide! Hawaii's people have changed a lot on supporting equality. Guess lots of people are discovering Gay people in the strangest places … within their own famlies!

  2. Praise God for Mark Takai's enlightenment. Many condemn, discriminate, and promote crucifixion towards their own Gay children, grandchildren, Ohana and friends. Gays are BORN Gay! Let's stop pushing our LGBT keikis into the closet, and forcing them to live a "lie". If civil rights was put to vote, there would be no inter-racial marriage … Imagine Hawaii with that law! Like Mr. Takai said, we can ALL, Gay and straight, work TOGETHER to find solutions to Hawaii's homeless, jobless and hungry. He has got my vote! Enough "holier than thou" judgement, hate and "pushing fear". What one sows, so shall they reap!

    • Where did this all followers of God are'; ""holier than thou" judgement, hate and "pushing fear". " ,thought? Obama, selected Rick Warren 5 of years ago for the inagural prayer. WHY?
      B.O. was invited to speak at church, despite their disagreements on a number of issues Warren, a best-selling author and leader of a Southern California mega church, is one of a new breed of evangelicals who stress the need for action on social issues such as reducing poverty and protecting the environment, alongside traditional theological themes like opposing LGBT marriage.

      Enough of your judgement, hate, & pushing fear on Christians.

      • Seems to me it's "Christians" who are the ones pushing fear, despite the fact that the Bible tells them to "Fear not" more than 300 times.

      • You should not quote the Bible out of context. "Fear not" is never referenced with regard to homosexuality and other sins. Moreover "fear" is referenced by the Apostle Paul with regard to people practicing sexual sin. "I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced." 2 Cor 12:21

      • Re: "You should not quote the Bible out of context."

        Why ever not? Anti-gay people do it all the time.

        Not being a Paulian, I don't put much credence in his words. (He was anti-women and pro-slavery too, as well as probably a closeted hojmosexual.) Christ, Himself, (who Paul never met) was silent on the issue. His selective 'followers' would be wise to take the hint and do likewise.

        I, like most people, do not consider that committing to someone in marriage is either "sexual sin" OR "immorality".

      • "Why ever not? Anti-gay people do it all the time."
        Care to give any examples? Moreover if you know that it's wrong, why then do you follow suit? According to your very shallow reasoning, indeed "two wrongs do make a right."

        "Not being a Paulian, I don't put much credence in his words. (He was anti-women and pro-slavery too, as well as probably a closeted hojmosexual.) "
        Not withstanding your biased presumptions, since most of the NT epistles were written by Paul, seems that you reject much of the NT to begin with and only accept what you pick and choose to agree with. Problem is all of the NT is inspired by God: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," 2 Tim 3:16. Note the verse says ALL OF SCRIPTURE is God inspired – not only some. Thus you need to contend with the whole counsel of God; not just accept what you happen to agree with.

        "Christ, Himself, (who Paul never met) was silent on the issue. His selective 'followers' would be wise to take the hint and do likewise."
        You commit a logical fallacy here known as arguing from silence which is one of the weakest forms of argumentation one can make. Based on your reasoning, since Jesus was also silent on cannibalism, bestiality and pedophilia to name a few, that silence must mean these behaviors are okay huh? Certainly doesn't sound wise to me.

        "I, like most people, do not consider that committing to someone in marriage is either "sexual sin" OR "immorality"
        Like "most people" really? I thought the pubically proclaimed mantra was the majority discriminating against the poor minority. It's fine to have your own personal opinion on the subject but don't make the mistake of thinking Jesus agrees with you. Jesus said this regarding marriage:
        "And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matt. 19:3-8)
        Jesus said from the beginning, marriage is meant to be between men and women and in that relationship they become one flesh. Anything outside of this God ordained relationship is immoral and sinful – irrespective of your belief.

      • If America were a theocracy, all your god-talk might mean something to the law. It isn't so it doesn't.

        Why the frightwing hate other people's freedom of (and from) religious belief is a mystery.

        Have a nice lifestyle. (BTW, preaching isn't your calling.)

      • You ought to think through your arguments before posting them. If law is not based on morality, what can it be based on? There is no justification for any law that is not based on a moral or ethical value. In fact many of our present laws are based on English common law which are derived from the Judeo-Christian ethic. Those who argue that Christian morality must be exorcised from law and society are at the same time arguing for new laws based on their own preferred moral base. Your argumentation is based on moral relativism instead of moral absolutes so based on your personal preference you see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. Do you draw the line there or is polygamy also okay with you? What about a homosexual father marrying his homosexual son? After all, isn't it wrong to discriminate against all of those who are in a loving committed relationship? Based on your rationale, you should be accepting of those relationships as well. As you can see, you soon find yourself on a moral slippery slope. Your use of cliches such as "frightwing hate" is an example of your resorting to fear mongering since the justification for your argumentation – both Biblically and logically is without merit. It's okay if you don't my like "preaching." Many people don't like what Jesus preached or taught either because it gets in the way of their lifestyle. Despite our differences, I do wish you well though.

      • Your premise is that non-believers and gay people are de facto 'immoral' – and that's just hogwash.

        More 'god-talk' doesn't add any believability to your premise.

        You do NOT wish me well. Your posts prove it, so stop bearing false witness. It's a seeyun.

      • I pointed out to you using Scripture how your argument was fallacious. You call it hogwash, yet you cannot even form a scriptural counterargument of your own. Of course it is your prerogative to accept or reject my sincerity. I will simply leave you with this book reference by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, a tenured Syracuse University English professor and former lesbian who wrote: "Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith." If you take the risk of reading this book, I think it will challenge your beliefs.

      • No, I called your insistence that non-believers and gay people cannot be moral "hogwash", because it is.

        The struggle for equality before the State under secular law needs no "scriptural counterargument" because equal rights are not dependent on anyone's religious beliefs. And ALL people have freedom to believe what they want to. Why you don't want others to have the right to their beliefs or have the right to the Constitutionally promised equal protections of the law is still a mystery.

      • Only if you will first share with us the "scientific evidence that people are born" straight.

        (How come NO ONE spends a millisecond or one thin dime trying to discover what causes heterosexuality?)

    • What a bunch of bunkum. The opening statement of that 'article' (I'm being kind here) says,

      "The state is in the marriage business to help keep a child’s mother and father together"

      Odd, then, that the state doesn't require couples to even HAVE children.

      The ONLY purpose of marriage in the eyes of the state is to establish legal kinship where none existed previously. EVERTYTHING else is personal, including the decision to have or not to have children.

      When procreation is a requirement of marriage – for ANYONE – feel free to get back to us. Until then though …

  3. May I just point out that many, many people have changed their minds on this topic.

    But, not ONE of them has moved from supporting equality to being against equality.

    IOW, the movement on this issue is going one way only – towards equality. And this is a good thing.

    Liberty and justice for ALL.

    Long live the "unalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    • HNN; "One of the most dangerous asteroids on record zipped close by Earth, relatively speaking, last month. Now NASA says the asteroid will be heading back in our direction.(in 19 years)
      Read More: https://bit.ly/1exxv2R

      Maybe sign from God? Coincidence that it passes by around governor's call for this waste of taxpayers money special session? Why can't he wait for the general session?

      Long live the "unalienable" rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
      Maybe only 19 yrs of LGBT marriages, then this rock strikes, billions die, and mankind will HAVE to procreate for human race to survive.

      So legalizing LGBT marriage will be a waste of time.

      • You can't start a sentence with "Maybe" and then type "So" in the next as if you have proved something. It's called a hypothetical. "Maybe" all people will turn purple, "so" heterosexual marriage will be a "waste of time".

        Get a better argument. Oh wait …. you never made one to begin with.

      • Weak George, weak.

        If it's grammer & details bugs you, then you are skirting the issue, oh not the purple skirt you wear, so stop wasting your time hoping heterosexuals will understand your drivel.

      • No, it isn't just the incoherent use of "grammer" [sic] but the utter lack of logic.

        P.S. I don't wear skirts – of any color. Your stereotyping is just vacuous drivel that still doesn't address the issue of equal protections of the law. It's just another lame excuse to insult others.

        Have a nice lifestyle.

      • "It's just another lame excuse to insult others. "
        Reread this thread boy-George, you used my reply as a excuse to insult JUST a bunch of questions I asked…….so I'm just defending my right of free speech, which by the way. is a great example of your issue of equal protections of the law.
        So your problem is like that Hilton lo-lo who bashes anyone who questions YOUR "authority"

        I repost, stop wasting your time hoping heterosexuals will understand your drivel.

        Enjoy the sun @ Queens beach lifestyle

      • One can't insult a question. But one can (and should) challenge questions based on illogic. Which is what I did.

        You must have missed it, but a majority of heterosexuals DO support equal marriage.

      • Sorry to reply so late George, but it took you 5 weeks to answer? Consulting a therapist?
        SO GEORGE, I didn't miss anything and I repeat, your Washington post poll is invalid as fact.
        Quote, "among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full survey is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points."

        THAT's only 200 per state, if they really did call each state.

        Quote, "In the current data, about three-quarters of those who do not see homosexuality as a choice support gay marriage, with most supporting it "strongly." More than two-thirds of those who see it as a choice oppose gay marriage, with almost all intensely against it."

        And the MAJORITY of Hawaii is STILL opposed to SSM as legislators didn't listen to us at all., no poll here either.

        BTW, you dislike God in our pledge of allegiance? Are you anti-Christian?

      • I replied the same day Discus notified me of YOUR comment.

        What's with the nasty "Consulting a therapist?" slam? (And you WONDER why you get labeled hateful? Sheesh!)

        Sorry, but human rights shouldn't be subjected to popularity contests.

        And, like I said before, the original Pledge did not contain the words "under God". I am pro-religious freedom, but unlike YOU, I am for it for ALL people, not just "Christians" (or other religionists). And no, I am not anti-Christian. I've been a member of my Christian faith for coming up on 35 years now.

        Look, if all you're going to do is hurl insults, there's not much point debating. Neither of us is going to change the other person's mind on this topic. And, like it or not, your side is losing.

      • Same-sex couples marrying does NOT prevent heterosexuals from procreatin' their socks off.

        Get a point.

      • OMG! 70 weeks ago you posted; .."Look, if all you're going to do is hurl insults, there's not much point debating…."
        AND NOW you hurl a comment AGAIN! WHY???? Can't let this go? Bitter? This past Saturday at the Hawaiian Healing Center, sessions on forgiveness took place as it was forgiveness day.

        Why should the Gay Lesbian organizations have been there? Because they & you NEED to let go! Remember; Mr. Hilton cursed and labeled a California beauty queen “Bitch” for her answer without remorse.
        So who is bitter and malicious?

      • The anti-equality squad, who are losing this debate nation-wide. THAT's who is "bitter and malicious"

      • "THAT's who is….. " That is bad grammar.
        You live where? Know of the HHC?
        I'm done with you.

  4. man we should have never gotten the government involved with marriage.what it all boils down to is the federal and state tax code.the IRS actually penalizes single tax payers and make them pay more in taxes than married couples.one of my points here is that the federal tax code exists solely for special interest groups(married couples,home owners,you name it)and for politicians to get votes and donations.very corrupt process.and totally unfair.and NOW special interest groups want the government(which also involves the IRS unfortunately) to recognize gay marriages.and eventually the gay single person will also be penalized.and the fact the state will be expanded and erosion of more personal liberties.

  5. also so called civil rights from a gov't is the state granting us priviledges,it's not inalienable or constant. Equality,equal opportunity,Marriage Equality have high emotional value,but empty meaningless concepts.it's multiculturalism.if a special interst group seeks out gov't. they want to replace personal liberty with gov't. control.the special interest want to replace equality before the law with entitlements.multiculturalism and diversity agenda is a "cancer on our society." And our tax dollars are supporting it.

    • We all – every one of us – has the unalienable rights to both liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Marriage, having 1,138 Federal benefits, burdens and obligations, is hardly an "empty meaningless concept.

      And gay people pay taxes too.

  6. @Guest- death benefits should be included in a life insurance policy that most people purchase on the open market.anyway as long as people think they are entitled to anything and everything,if people of all lifestyles and backgrounds think that only government "action" can solve their problems or eliminate "inequalities" and groups of people and special interests want the government to protect them and their entitlements from other groups and special interests,nothing will change.wanting more governmentjust advances the state agenda,not freedom.which leads directly to totalitarianism.and this all has nothing to do with government workers.they are also being shafted.

  7. Is marriage a "right"? If so, why is a license required? Government cannot issue "rights"! By issuing a license, to me, it infers that it is a priviledge (granted by government). Think of rights we presently possess; i.e,. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    • Some people will find happiness in marriage. And they have the unalienable right to pursue it.

      And yes, marriage is a right. A fundamental, human and civil right. So says the body that gets to interpret it.

Comments are closed.