Tag Archives: hawaii

ProCon.org – Gay Marriage

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? As of Jan. 6, 2014, gay marriagehas been legalized in17 US states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, RI, VT, andWA) and the District of Columbia.33 stateshave gay marriage bansthrough either laws or constitutional amendments or both.

Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.

Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages. Read more…

Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.

Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages.

The gay rights movement in the US can be traced back to the Stonewall Riots that occurred following a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York City at 3 a.m. on June 28, 1969. Police raids on gay bars were commonplace, but on this occasion the gay and lesbian patrons fought back and sparked days of protests. The Stonewall Riots marked the beginning of a political movement for gay rights during a time when it was illegal to have homosexual sex in all states except for Illinois. [21] Between 1969 and 1974, the number of gay organizations in the country swelled from fewer than 50 to nearly a thousand. [22]

Gay-rights activism in the 1970s focused more on personal liberation and visibility than on gaining access to institutions such as marriage. While some gay activists sought the right to marry in the early 1970s, others rejected marriage as “heterosexist and saw it as an outdated institution. [23] The gay liberation movement achieved a victory in Dec. 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder and the American Psychological Association did the same in 1975. [24]

The increased visibility of the gay community prompted a well publicized backlash by opponents of gay-rights. One high-profile opponent of gay rights was singer and former Miss Oklahoma Anita Bryant who founded the group Save Our Children and campaigned to repeal local ordinances that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. During the 1980s, news of the AIDS epidemic increased homophobia and discrimination but also encouraged the gay community to further organize. Following the news that actor Rock Hudson was dying of AIDS, attitudes towards both AIDS and the gay community started to shift. In 1983, Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) became the first openly gay Congressman, followed by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) in 1987. [23]

The current national debate on gay marriage was sparked by the Supreme Court of Hawaiis 3-1 ruling on May 5, 1993 that the state could not ban same-sex marriages without “a compelling reason to do so. [55] The case was sent back to a lower court but voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage before the courts settled the issue. Although a gay marriage was never performed in Hawaii, the issue gained national attention and prompted over 40 states over the next decade to pass Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs) that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. [59] On Sep. 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law which defined marriage at the federal level as between a man and a woman. The federal DOMA statute ensured that no state would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states and prevented same-sex couples from receiving federal protections and benefits given to married heterosexual couples.

On June 26, 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. In overruling the courts June 30, 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, the court established a right to sexual privacy and Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in his dissent that the majority decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

See the original post here:

ProCon.org – Gay Marriage

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

New Hawaii Ad Against Gay Marriage – Video

New Hawaii Ad Against Gay Marriage
Radio ad against same-sex marriage in Hawaii. Produced by the Hawaii Republican Assemblyonkneesforjesus.blogspot.

By: finch lorda

Visit link:

New Hawaii Ad Against Gay Marriage – Video

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Wingnuts most audacious lie yet: Quietly pretending their views are liberal!

Following the state Senates lead, Republicans in Arizonas House of Representatives voted on Thursday in favor of a new billto turn their states LGBT residents into second-class citizens. According to Arizona Republicans and their supporters throughout the country, they did this to protect religious liberty (a stark reminder that terrible decisions are often made in the name of an abstract good). Yet in spite of its lofty goal, in the real world, the bill, like bills put forward in Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Hawaii and Mississippi, will become a weapon of exclusion and an impediment to the further integration of LGBT Americans into everyday life in America. A testament to ours being a time of universally recognized change on the issue of gay rights, social conservatives are mounting their most desperate assault on LGBT people since DOMA while utilizing the liberals language of inherent dignity and fundamental rights.

The bills differ somewhat in their particulars, but the basic thrust of each piece of legislation is the same: In the name of religious liberty, these laws would allow folks in both the private and the public spheres to refuse services to anyone whose behavior or assumedbehavior they considered sinful. Own a restaurant but dont want any LGBT people to use it as the location for a same-sex weddings after-party? Not to worry: Even if your town has anti-discrimination laws currently on the books, you can avoid getting sued by simply claiming your reasons are religious in nature. If the guy sitting at the counter looks to you like he might be gay, go ahead and tell him to hit the road. Republicans defend you when you say youre not discriminating but rather trying to live in accordance with your faith.

Needless to say, these are odious bills, so patently designed to allow some Americans to deny the rights and dignity of others that the frequently made comparisons to Jim Crow are depressingly appropriate. And while there are some signs that even those who dont support the rights of LGBT citizens see this kind of legislation as a bridge too far, the Arizona example shows that this kind of legislation is a frighteningly real possibility for millions of Americans. As Evan Hurst, associate director of the pro-gay rights nonprofit Truth Wins Out, told David Corn of Mother Jones, [O]ne would think the GOP would like to be electable among people under 50 sometime in the near future and would thus avoid supporting Jim Crow-style anti-gay legislation. But at this point, it looks like thats an open question.

As retrograde as this kind of legislation is, however, theres something ironically modern even vaguely progressive about the arguments its supporters have put forward in its defense.

If it were 10 years ago, during the time when Karl Rove infamously hoped to use opposition to same-sex marriage as a tool to increase turnout among evangelicals and secure George W. Bushs reelection, you wouldnt expect those on the religious right and their Republican allies to claim that their discriminatory legislation is about protecting civil rights. Instead of unpersuasively warning that those who hate gay people because of their religion are in danger of having their rights trampled upon, the anti-gay movement in American politics would focus their arguments on the sin of homosexuality and the dangers it poses to the social order. Their pitch would focus on LGBT people, not themselves.

Yet here we are in 2014, with gay marriage legal in more than a dozen states and with the social stigma against homosexuality less powerful than at any other time in American history. Now, the very same people who would once dismiss the notion that LGBT people have rights are adopting the rhetorical framework of their opponents, hoping to rebrand bigotry as an outgrowth of religious conviction. Instead of making an argument in favor of marginalizing a persecuted group, conservatives are now the ones hoping to claim the mantle of oppression and shoehorn themselves into the sphere of protected persons.

Its an utterly self-conscious act of disingenuousness and deception, too. As George Mason University public policy professor Mark Rozell once recommended they do, conservatives, understanding that their culture war language was repelling young people on the left and the right, have adopted the rhetoric of rights and tolerance that liberals currently own in an attempt to speak to secular types about the value of pluralism and religious conscience. It may be a savvy move, but the hypocrisy is stunning. Its as if the shadowy spymasters of the National Security Agency began arguing that their activities should be shielded from public scrutiny in the name of preserving theirprivacy rights.

Its risible, of course, but its not without precedent. The right has done this before, adopting the lefts own arguments while perverting them so egregiously that they barely resemble their former selves. Think of that other, older GOP claim to victimhood: reverse racism. Like reverse racism, the religious liberty defense implicitly grants the legitimacy of the liberal worldview while attempting to rejigger it in such a way that previously antithetical elements of the conservative perspective can survive in a new, less hospitable political environment. Just as pointing out white privilege and advocating for policies to counteract it in material, rather than just social, ways became a manifestation of reverse racism, so, too, does the attempt to fully integrate LGBT people into mainstream society become a form of ignoring religious liberty.

Ultimately, these conservatives grant too much legitimacy to the liberal narrative for their ersatz rights to survive under the weight of their own incoherence. The logic of inherent dignity and rights is too powerful, and its implications too easily understood, to be overcome by the rights desperate contortions. The religious liberty argument largely appeals to the kind of people who were once receptive to more straightforward, traditionalist arguments against homosexuality. As their numbers dwindle through the passage of time, and as generation after generation is raised in a culture that takes LGBT peoples humanity for granted, the religious liberty argument will be seen as the bizarre last gasp of fading order that it is.

It reminds me of nothing so much as that clich of modern politics, If youre explaining, youre losing. When it comes to electoral politics, that may be true. But when were talking about the larger political struggle between the ideologies of the left and right, I dont think its sufficient. In that context, its not explanation thats a sign of failure, but rather plagiarism. To put it differently: The simplest way for opponents of LGBT rights to know theyre now losing the debate is to do nothing more than listen to themselves speak.

Go here to read the rest:

Wingnuts most audacious lie yet: Quietly pretending their views are liberal!

Posted in Liberal Views | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Legal Lions Boies and Olson Set Back Gay Marriage – Bloomberg

(Corrects spelling of Bill Rubenstein in sixth paragraph.)

Eons ago — OK, 1996 — I was a fresh-faced summer associate at the venerable white shoe law firm Davis Polk and Wardwell in New York. As part of their civilizing mission for law students, the firm not only taught us how to drink dry martinis but urged us to adopt a pro bono cause. The most dynamic associate I met happened to be out of the closet, and by his good offices I ended up doing some work that summer for the Marriage Project of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, run by the pioneering gay-marriage activist Evan Wolfson. At the time, the Hawaii Supreme Court had just become the first court to find that equality required same-sex marriage, and the predecessor to the Defense of Marriage Act was being bandied about in Congress: For an aspiring constitutional lawyer, it was game on.

I thought of Wolfson this week when hearing that Ted Olson and David Boies, lawyers for George W. Bush and Al Gore respectively in the great 2000 recount, were once again trying to attach themselves to gay marriage cases with a good chance of reaching the Supreme Court.

Back in 2010, when the duo managed to become lawyers for the movement challenging California’s Proposition 8, they had no history whatever of working for gay rights. They proceeded to win a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, most probably because Justice Anthony Kennedy was not ready embrace a general right to gay marriage.

From a lawyer’s perspective, this was much worse than shameless headline grabbing. (Disclosure: We kind of admire that.) It was an attempt to steal the glory of arguing the Brown v. Board of Education of gay rights from the lawyers who had spent some 30 years fighting for the cause. It was as if John W. Davis, the former solicitor general and presidential candidate who founded the law firm Davis Polk, had switched sides and represented Brown instead of the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, because that side had a better chance of winning.

Of course Olson and Boies had an explanation — youd expect nothing less of two of the most distinguished lawyers in the U.S. Their official rationale was that it was every (straight) man’s business to see justice done. Their unofficial justification was that if the name of the game was to convince Kennedy that America was ready for gay marriage, nothing could be better than a bipartisan dream team of heterosexual super lawyers.

As it turned out, however, Kennedy couldn’t have cared less who was arguing against Proposition 8. Give the man a little credit. He’s been shepherding gay rights into American public life since the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, when he wrote the opinion striking down a Colorado state constitutional amendment that, he said, denied equal protection to gay people. In his way, Kennedy is almost as much a veteran of the gay rights movement as Evan Wolfson. Theres plenty of heroism to go around, like that of my colleague Bill Rubenstein, who, even before Wolfson joined Lambda, started the American Civil Liberty Unions gay rights project.

What there isn’t is room for Olson and Boies, two accomplished, intelligent and perfectly charming people who have lumbered into an extremely sensitive and complex area of legal activism in which they are, frankly, newcomers. Their Proposition 8 efforts substantiate this problem. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit wrote an opinion in the Prop 8 case that was designed to avoid Supreme Court review — because he himself, a former colleague of Kennedy’s and the maestro of pushing the constitutional envelope, judged that the Supreme Court was not quite ready. When the case went before the Supreme Court anyway, Olson and Boies pushed the claim for universal gay rights instead of emphasizing Reinhardt’s narrow holding. They had to — because they were in it for the historic judgment, not to win a one-off case for their clients.

Now, once again, there is a risk that putting Olson and Boies at the helm of litigation could do harm. Perhaps the cases percolating their way to the Supreme Court from Utah and Oklahoma are the next ones that the court will be ready to hear. But Anthony Kennedy should be able to choose the case that he wants, when he wants. The gay marriage activists know this. They are not trying to pressure Kennedy into the decision that they seek and that he has all but promised he will one day provide. The stakes — for them and the movement they represent — are too high for that kind of brinksmanship. The marriage activists will let the various cases making their way toward the court proceed at their natural pace, as Thurgood Marshall did when he was ran the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund.

It’s great that the cause of equality for gay people has hangers-on. In retrospect, I suppose that as a law student in 1995 I was exactly that. Olson and Boies are among the best general practitioners in the country. But sometimes (by which I mean always) you want to leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons.


Legal Lions Boies and Olson Set Back Gay Marriage – Bloomberg

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Same-sex marriage in the United States – Wikipedia, the …

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships Marriage

Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark: Denmark proper France Iceland Mexico: DF,1QR1 Netherlands: Netherlands proper2 New Zealand: New Zealand proper

Norway Portugal South Africa Spain Sweden United Kingdom: England and Wales United States: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL,IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, RI, VT, WA, 8tribes Uruguay

Not yet in effect 1. Valid in all of Mexico 2. Can be registered also in Aruba, Curaao and Sint Maarten 3. Ohio recognizes same-sex marriage for death certificate purposes only

Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in some jurisdictions within the United States and by the federal government.[1] As of January 2014[update], seventeen states[2] (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriage, although the Illinois law will not become effective until June 1, 2014.[n 1] Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions[n 2] issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Ohio recognizes out-of-state marriages for death certificate purposes only.[3]Missouri recognizes legal out-of-state same-sex marriages for joint tax returns purposes only.[4]Utah recognizes same-sex marriages performed while they were legal in the state for tax purposes only.[5]

In December 2013, a federal court declared Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.[6] More than 1,300 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples before the United States Supreme Court stayed the court’s order pending further appeals on January 6, 2014.[7] On January 14, 2014, a federal court declared Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and immediately stayed the ruling pending appeal.[8]

While many jurisdictions have legalized same-sex civil marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote, four states prohibit same-sex civil marriage by statute and 29 prohibit it in their constitutions.[9] The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states. Section 3 of DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages until that provision was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor.[10][11]

The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s,[12] but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state’s prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.[13] On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health six months earlier.[14] During the 21st century, public support for same-sex civil marriage has grown considerably,[15][16] and national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support legalizing it. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex civil marriage.[17] On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex civil marriage through popular vote.

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are determined by the nation’s federal system of government, in which the status of a person (including marriage) in general is determined by the individual states. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.[18]

DOMA was challenged in the federal court system. On July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[19][20] Since 2010, eight federal courts have found DOMA to be unconstitutional on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[21][22][23] On October 18, 2012, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court[24] to hold sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification and applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States.[25]Windsor and four other federal cases were considered for review by the U.S. Supreme Court,[26][27] which, in its June 26, 2013, decision in Windsor, held Section 3 to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.[28]

Read the original post:

Same-sex marriage in the United States – Wikipedia, the …

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Marriage is for Everyone..Say I Do on Maui! – Gay Marriage – Video

Marriage is for Everyone..Say I Do on Maui! – Gay Marriage
On 11/13/13, Governor Abercrombie's signature made same sex marriage legal in Hawaii, providing a surge in destination weddings. Since passage, two Maui busi…

By: MauiSunseekerResort

Read more from the original source:

Marriage is for Everyone..Say I Do on Maui! – Gay Marriage – Video

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Monsanto | United States – Monsanto | A Sustainable …

FL – Florida Felda Homestead. GA – Georgia Leesburg Tifton. HI – Hawaii Kihei Hanapepe Haleiwa Kaunakakai Lahaina.

See the article here:

Monsanto | United States – Monsanto | A Sustainable …

Posted in Occupy Florida | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Gay Man Murdered, Hawaii Makes gay marriage legal, News Anchor quitting – Video

Gay Man Murdered, Hawaii Makes gay marriage legal, News Anchor quitting
http://www.coffeetimenews.weebly.com Coffee Time News (CTN) or Gay News Around the World is news broadcast covering everything GAY. CTN was founded in 2011 b…


See the rest here:

Gay Man Murdered, Hawaii Makes gay marriage legal, News Anchor quitting – Video

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Gay Marriage: Rep. Kaniela Ing Managing Backlash and Threat – Video

Gay Marriage: Rep. Kaniela Ing Managing Backlash and Threat
Hawaii special session: Signing ceremony for SB1 marriage equality. – expression808.com | eXpression! Magazine Hawaii.

By: expression808

Go here to see the original:

Gay Marriage: Rep. Kaniela Ing Managing Backlash and Threat – Video

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Hawaii Passes Gay Marriage Bill – Video

Hawaii Passes Gay Marriage Bill
The Hawaii Senate passed a House-amended bill legalizing same-sex marriage on Tuesday. Watch Full Segment Here: http://goo.gl/KqwEaw Subscribe to HuffPost Li…

By: HuffPost Live

View original post here:

Hawaii Passes Gay Marriage Bill – Video

Posted in Gay Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off