A step forward in Hawaii

[Mark]

Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill
Measure Now Goes To Governor For Signing

The state Senate on Wednesday passed a vote to legalize civil unions in Hawaii.

The issue has brought out passionate demonstrations on both sides.

Senators for and against the measure spoke on the floor before the vote.

The bill passed 18 to 5. Gov. Neil Abercrombie said he would sign the bill into law. That could happen as soon as this week.

“I appreciate all the time and effort invested by those who shared their thoughts and concerns regarding civil unions in Hawaii. This has been an emotional process for everyone involved, but that process is now ended. Everyone has been heard; all points of view respected," Abercrombie said in a written statement. “For me, this bill represents equal rights for all the people of Hawaii.”

The measure would establish civil unions and extend the same rights and responsibilities on a couple as spouses have in a marriage.

Critics of the measure often cited religious beliefs that homosexuality is a immoral lifestyle choice that threatens the institution of traditional marriage.

Supporters said being gay is not a choice and denying equality is discrimination no different than discrimination based on race. They said civil unions will encourage stable relationships in the gay community.

If signed, the measure would allow civil unions beginning Jan. 1, 2012.

Last year, our former Republican governer vetoed this bill. We elect a new governor and POOF......magic happens. Bet this makes Hawaii more popular in the US.

[Tsukiyumi]

Awesome. The more states pass these laws, the sooner we'll end up with establishment of case law in the Supreme Court, or maybe even an amendment.

[Mikey]

We were one of the first states legally legitimizing same-sex civil unions, but still can't seem to get on the gender-neutral marriage-law bandwagon.

We've got medical marijuana, though... and I might have chronically elevated eye pressure...

[Deepcrush]

Maryland's Senate just passed a bill for the same.

[Graham Kennedy]

Excellent news.


Just curious... some states have laws that won't recognise same sex unions done in another state, do they not?

So why don't the states with those SSU's say "Okay, then we'll pass a law refusing to recognise marriages performed in your state. See how you like it..."

[Mikey]

I think it's more like a negative check-off, in that states may not have a specific provision to recognize other states' civil unions. The effect is about the same, though.

To answer the second question, ironic though it might have been:
#1 - It is not any one state's job or place to react, judge, or respond to other states' positions.
#2 - How, exactly, does punishing breeders who may be completely uninvolved in the issue do anything for the cause of gay marriage?

[Teaos]

Does it ever matter where you are married? Like when buying a house or applying for a loan?

[BigJKU316]

Does it ever matter where you are married? Like when buying a house or applying for a loan?

No.

[Mikey]

Does it ever matter where you are married? Like when buying a house or applying for a loan?

No, but it does matter whether you are married by a legally-accepted agency. For example, I couldn't legally co-sign for my wife if we were "married" by the "church" that Eddie started up in his basement three weeks ago.

[Captain Seafort]

I think it's more like a negative check-off, in that states may not have a specific provision to recognize other states' civil unions. The effect is about the same, though.

Why? "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Ergo, as far as I see it, a marriage in one state is valid in all, regardless of whether said other state likes it or not.

[Mikey]

That's the sticking point - a marriage is. That's why civil unions aren't considered the equal of marriage, and why gay-rights groups aren't as satisfied with same-sex civil unions as they are with legally-recognized same-sex marriages.

[Captain Seafort]

That's the sticking point - a marriage is. That's why civil unions aren't considered the equal of marriage

Pfft. Marriage, civil union, whatever. It is still, I presume, a matter of public record, and therefore counts.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

That's the sticking point - a marriage is. That's why civil unions aren't considered the equal of marriage

Pfft. Marriage, civil union, whatever. It is still, I presume, a matter of public record, and therefore counts.

It's how my mother, a Justice of the Peace, feels about it. She's got no problem doing same-sex marriages.

[Captain Seafort]

Pfft. Marriage, civil union, whatever. It is still, I presume, a matter of public record, and therefore counts.

It's how my mother, a Justice of the Peace, feels about it. She's got no problem doing same-sex marriages.

My point, however, is specifically legalistic - while the specific benefits accrued through civil partnerships and marriages may be different, they're both "public acts, records, or judicial proceedings", and therefore whether or not other states want to recognise them or not is irrelevant. Hence my querying Mikey's statement that they sometimes aren't.

[Mikey]

That's the sticking point - a marriage is. That's why civil unions aren't considered the equal of marriage

Pfft. Marriage, civil union, whatever. It is still, I presume, a matter of public record, and therefore counts.

You can presume so if you like. In a perfect world, there would be no need for the distinction. I'm not advocating any lame attempt at "separate but equal," I'm merely reporting it.