• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Veto from Hawaii: Marriage Debate Needs More Than Last-Minute Legislative Maneuvers

    This past April, on the last day of the legislative session, the Hawaii House of Representatives voted 31–20 in favor of HB 444, a controversial measure creating civil unions. This week, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle replied with a veto of the bill. She states, “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name.” In her public statement, Lingle also points out that the last-minute vote by legislators represents a “flawed” legal process:

    The legislative maneuvering that brought HB 444 to an 11th hour vote, on the final day of the session, via a suspension of the rules, after legislators lead the public to believe that the bill was dead, was wrong and unfair to the public they represent.

    But that’s not the sole reason Lingle vetoed the bill.

    I want to be clear that my personal opinion is not the basis for my decision against allowing this legislation to become law. Neither is my veto based on my religious beliefs or on the political impact it might have on me or anyone else of either political party in some future election. I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii [emphasis added].

    Governor Lingle’s decision in this context is right. The debate surrounding the redefinition of marriage in Hawaii centers on the nature of family and its role as “a prime institution in civil society.” According to Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Chuck Donovan, the “family is not the creature of the state” but is “both natural and pre-political” in its origins. As such, the consequences of a redefinition for the whole of the state are weighty. A change of this magnitude should not “be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party,” but, as Governor Lingle suggests, “by all the people of Hawaii.”

    Lingle is set to leave office at the end of December after serving two terms as governor. Consequently, it will be up to the next legislature to decide if a new bill should be introduced and fully debated or if such a measure should go before the voters. Hawaii voters overturned a state Supreme Court decision in 1993 that created same-sex marriage, and their next turn at the ballot box comes in this fall’s congressional and state legislative elections. Hawaii recognizes some legal obligations for unmarried partners but nothing approaching the marriage-equivalent status Governor Lingle wisely vetoed.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to A Veto from Hawaii: Marriage Debate Needs More Than Last-Minute Legislative Maneuvers

    1. Advocates for Libert says:

      And this, my friends, is why liberty will die. Because of faux liberty lovers ranting and raving about their fear of gay people.

      Has it occurred to anyone from either side of this issue that marriage should not be a government issue? Why can't any consenting adults enter into contractual agreements with each other? Why do our various levels of government bestow certain privileges to only those contracts between a man and a woman?

      Why should these unions get preferential treatment over any single person? If a church blesses unions of which you do not approve or refuses to honor those you do approve, you can attend & donate to another church. If we are really in pursuit of smaller government and more freedom, shouldn't we approach this issue in such a way? The point is that the government has overstepped on the issue of marriage when the church gave it away. The government needs to get back to the very limited powers outlined in the Constitution. Giving special tax treatment, legal treatment, medical treatment, retirement benefits, etc. to a favored group is unfair, no matter the make up of that group.

      So, the REAL solution to this is to get rid of ALL marriage licensing. Get rid of the IRS recognition of a marriage and its different treatment from single people or people in other familial relationships. Shouldn't our tax laws treat all people equally, regardless of marital status? Do we really need the government's permission to form a family–gay, straight, two-person, multi-person?

      Believe it or not, plenty of us in the Tea Party movement believe in the government getting out of our lives.

    2. B. Warren - GA says:

      As a libertarian, I am appalled by your hypocracy. I think the majority of involved citizens can see through the hypocracy. The modern "conservatives" believe in small, unobtrusive government, unless of course government is an instrument of what they believe. The "tenth amendment" folks have it right, the only solution to big government is small government. Leave decisions to the individual, local, or state governments, the parties to the contract that is our Constitution. That is the closest we can get to liberty. Anything else, just leaves us vulnerable to the whims of the elected representatives and executives, in other words the law of humans rather than the rule of law. You might be happy with Bush '41 or W. but not so happy with Clinton or Obama.

    3. Andrew Walden Hilo, says:

      In the entire history of the human race there has never been gay marriage until it was invented in 1993 by the corrupt Hawaii Supreme Court which took a break from its primary role: looting the $9B Kamehameha Trust. After inventing gay marriage, they went back to looting for another 6 years until the IRS forced the Kamehameha Trustees to quit and the Hawaii Supremem Court was forced to quit appointing them.

      When former Gov Ben Cayetano–a pro gay marriage advocate–came out with his book "Ben", Steven Levinson, inventor of gay marriage, resigned from the court. He claims it was not because of Cayetano's claims of Levinson's role in giving Trustee positions to crooks.

      Gay Marriage has never existed on any continent, in any religion, in any culture or language at any time before 1993. Not in any tribe, kingdom, or republic.

      And now anybody who opposes it is a "bigot" or "anti-freedom."

      You need to read Freud "Civilization and its Discontents" and Marcuse "Eros and Civilization" to understand how Marxists under the slogan "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" have worked to unleash eros for the destruction of civilization.

      It is the world's largest brainwashing operation, leveraged by a small group of 1960s academic Marxists who learned how to manipulate humans' inner animal known as "id". Once unhinged, "id" has been taking care of the rest ever since.

      Donovan gets closer than most when he points out "the family is not the creature of the state" this is excactly right. But he is wrong when he says the family is natural. The family is the foundation of civilization. It is a very old artificial construct which corresponds with the foundations of civilization and the beginnings of written history. The natural condition of humans is animalistic. Just because something is 'natural' does not make it desirable. The alleged 'freedom' of pre-history was fictional due to the state of permanent low-level warfare and the dominion of violence in interpersonal relationships.

      So the question is whether we allow ourselves to sucumb to our animal nature or do we continue to repress (Freud's word) our nature in order to remain civilized. A subsidary question would be what behaviors must still be repressed in order to remain civilized.

      But of course gay marriage is even more artificial than traditional marriage. Gay Marriage truly is the servant of the State–or at least the servant of the Second International. There is zero history or pre-history of gay marriages. The norms have been pederasty and polyandry (aka promiscity). Now in order to dismantle the traditional family, social democrats, and the much larger group of servants of unleashed 'id', are trying to set up an artifical homosexual 'family'–sometimes complete with somebody else's kids–as being equal before the law.


      Beyond Marriage The Confession: Hawaii Gay marriage advocates let the polyamorous cat out of the bag

      The Overhauling of Straight America

    4. Chris Vogel, Winnipe says:

      Religious control freaks like Lingle imagine they can make everyone do what they want. Happily, they can't: we've already cancelled our trip.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.