BILL IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARD GAY MARRIAGE

I was amazed at the fantastic turnout at the state Capitol on Sunday for those of us who oppose the civil union bill 444. It goes to show how strongly that the people of Hawai'i feel about this homosexual marriage bill disguised as "civil liberties."

Sen. Brian Taniguchi once again has thumbed his nose at the law disregarding the people's voices from 1998. Taniguchi even tries to justify his bill by claiming that it will help our economy by having homosexuals from around the world flock to Hawai'i because of this bill. If that is the case let's legalize prostitution and gambling! Surely our economy would benefit from these industries.

This is a slippery slope. Sneak in domestic partnerships first. Then it will expand to civil unions. Then get a liberal judge to say you cannot discriminate between the two. Next a few more liberal ACLU lawyers and another liberal Hawai'i judge and bingo! Marriage for all!

Sen. Taniguchi, I hope you are paying attention to what the majority of the people of Hawai'i are telling you. We will remember your actions on this bill and your personal conduct in the next election.

THANKS TO SENATORS WHO STAND FOR PUBLIC

Thank you, Senators Bunda, Gabbard and Slom for opposing HB 444 and other bills that seek to override public support for both marriage and reciprocal benefits.

If the purpose of this legislation is to grant needed reciprocal benefits for non-married individuals and homosexuals, then draft legislation to fix the purported shortfalls in existing law.

If the purpose of passing these bills is to satisfy the Hawai'i Democratic platform, then there is a disconnect between the party apparatchiks and the people; no public vote has ever endorsed homosexual marriage.

Too often, in its efforts to fix something, government destroys something else that is good and worth preserving. Playing games with words such as "These bills preserve the definition of marriage" is disingenuous and an affront to the clear will of the public. HB 444 and related bills should not pass.

EFFORT IS ACT OF BLATANT DISREGARD FOR VOTERS

The move by Hawai'i's lawmakers to consider recognizing civil unions under the law is an act of blatant disregard for public opinion. Sen. Robert Bunda is correct in pointing out that there is no honest distinction between civil unions and same-sex marriage. The fact that 70 percent of the voters polled in Hawai'i are against same-sex marriage, the clone of civil unions, doesn't seem to carry any weight with Hawai'i's liberal political establishment. Once in office lawmakers disconnect themselves from public opinion on matters of personal interest and install their own agendas which in Hawai'i are traditionally liberal. But then this is Hawai'i.

TIME TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST CULTURAL BULLIES

I have been a resident of Hawai'i for more than 30 years and was proud to raise my son in such a beautifully tolerant place, but the sight of 2,000 people protesting the possibility of equal — or nearly equal — rights for their fellow citizens fills me with a sense of shame.

How many of those protesters realize that before 1967 they, too, would have been denied in many states the right to marry someone of a different race? Just how does it threaten one person's marriage when strangers harbor different conceptions of an appropriate spouse? The mullahs in Iran also feel their culture threatened by matters pluralistic, but that does not mean Americans should emulate them.

The citizens of Hawai'i, most of whom I still believe to be tolerant, decent folk, should stand up to cultural bullies and encourage the Senate to pull the bill out of committee.

PUBLIC NOT ALWAYS 'READY' FOR RIGHT CHANGE

I want to commend the Rev. Dr. John Heidel and the Interfaith Alliance Hawai'i for courageously acknowledging that the issue of civil unions is not "a religious issue, but a civil rights issue." Too many times throughout history people have used religion and/or the Bible to justify "tradition," whether it be restricting the rights of ethnic minorities, women, and now the gay community. Time and again society has looked back on those significant turning points in history and recognized that the voices speaking out against social change have been wrong.

Even those civil union opponents like Sen. Robert Bunda who try to claim "consent of the governed" in justifying their opposition miss the point. Was American society "ready" for school desegregation in 1954? Or interracial marriage in 1967? If either of those decisions was put to a popular vote both most likely would have lost in many states. Looking back on them now, however, very few people would say those changes were wrong.

As Martin Luther King said, the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. It is time for Hawai'i's legislators to get on the right side of history on the civil unions bill.

ISSUE THEN AND NOW IS EQUAL RIGHTS, JUSTICE

Hawai'i has a long and honorable history of respecting and embracing cultural and religious diversity. This celebrated tolerance was gravely threatened in 1998 by the constitutional amendment passed that year against gay marriage.

Supported and financed extensively by powerful religious extremists' foundations mostly from the Mainland, this referendum was a deliberate assault upon democracy. Suffice to say, a small yet vocal and well-organized religious coalition publicly committed to legislating morality nationwide succeeded in misleading well-meaning people into supporting legislation of bigotry and intolerance.

Admirably, the Hawai'i Legislature is again today focusing on correcting this injustice through a renewed push to grant committed same-sex couples similar rights and benefits to married couples through civil unions.

The issue here is not about marriage. The real issue then and now is simply one of equal rights and justice for all — for everyone — regardless of race, religious creed or sexual orientation.

Science has proven that a person's sexual orientation is not something that is chosen any more than is the color of our skin. Attacks on the rights of any of us attack the rights of all of us, and threaten everyone. Otherwise, who's next?

The majority of Hawai'i residents have spoken out in favor of tolerance, and hearing us, our lawmakers appear to have found the fortitude and conviction to rectify this mistake.

SHOW AGAINST EQUALITY WAS HEARTBREAKING

My heart broke today as I rode down Beretania past the state Capitol building — hundreds and hundreds of people, all gathered to protest equal civil protection for same-sex couples in committed relationships. I understand that certain religious groups may not want to confer their blessings on such relationships; that's perfectly fine. Civil unions, however, would not force that to happen; they would simply provide state-sanctioned rights and responsibilities to two adults who have committed their hearts to each other.

I support the passage of HB 444. I support equal civil rights for all Hawaiians. Please contact your state representatives letting them know that you do as well.

LOVE IS AT THE CORE OF CIVIL UNIONS AS WELL

People have the power to decide who gets married in their churches, but civil unions are about legal rights between individuals who want to make mutual commitments before a judge. Encouraging people to form enduring, stable emotional relationships is a benefit to the whole community.

Anyone who has read the Christian Gospels knows that Jesus Christ took the side of the persecuted and marginalized. He preached love and compassion, not discrimination against a minority. Love is at the core of Christianity, and of civil unions too.

WHAT'S PROBLEM WITH SAME-SEX COUPLES?

Why can't same-sex couples receive and enjoy family benefits laws just as male-female couples do? What problems do you have with Martha marrying Leilani, or George living with Kawika? They need to be secure in their private financial lives, as well as the rest of us.

I don't get the physical attraction part, but I do get the love and dedication-to-your-partner part. What gives? To me, straights seem so holier-than-thou. Why are they opposed? Why are they persuading others that same-sex is bad?

Let's call a spade a spade. Straight couples practice infidelity (i.e. forbidden sex) all the time, unfortunately for the offended spouse. In the legal arena, I am in favor of recognizing both legal "marriage" or "union" (between two people, not polygamy) with a loved one, who is loyal, religious, pono, and contributory to their communities, straight or gay. We all live in the same 'aina.

OUR BAD CHOICES WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES

I have a friend who was a very powerful politician in New York. In fact he wanted to run for Congress. It was going to happen, until he made an fatal mistake. He pushed for a bill to make same-sex marriage legal in New York. And this move ended his political career. Which reminds me of another local politician named Jackie Young who was helping push the same-sex marriage bill, when we were voting on defining marriage.

I remember Miss Young once said, "it was not about morals, but about giving equal rights to gay couples." What happened to Miss Jackie Young? So in regard to HB 444 to approve to give equal rights to same-sex couples, I want to warn all of our state politicians of the consequences that may come if the bill does become law.

The moral decline of our state and not to mention the possible end of political careers. It's time to think about what is right. The state motto is, "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness." It is time for our elected officials to remember that there will be consequences for the bad choices we make.

WHEN DOES A MAJORITY VOTE JUSTIFY INEQUALITY?

How sad. I live in a country supposedly based on separation of church and state, and equality but in the name of the "bible" equality is being denied to a segment of the society.

Since when does a "70 percent" vote (10 years ago) justify inequality? Isn't that the same number that was used to justify laws making it illegal for blacks to marry whites in parts of the U.S., the same percentage that disallowed women the vote? Isn't that the same bible used by the Ku Klux Klan to justify their white "supremacy?" Is that the same Catholic Church who, decades ago, refused to baptize me as I was a product of a Catholic father and a Protestant mother? Thankfully we have moved beyond these bigotries in spite of what were "majority" opinions.

If the protesting group is worried about protecting the sanctity of marriage I suggest they put their efforts toward rectifying the more than 50 percent of marriages that will end in divorce. In the meantime I wish my Legislature to ensure the equality of rights to all and ratify civil unions — as promised by the Constitution.