PBS Hawaii – Insights: Same-Sex Marriage

PBS Hawaii – Insights: Same-Sex Marriage


TONIGHT ON INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII.
IN 1993, HAWAII STATE SUPREME COURT SEEMED TO PAVE THE WAY FOR SAMESEX MARRIAGE.
BUT 20 YEARS LATER, WE CONTINUE TO DEBATE THIS ISSUE WHILE LEGALLY PERMITTING THE COMPROMISE
OF CIVIL UNIONS. HOW FAR HAVE WE COME IN THE PAST 20 YEARS?
AND WHERE ARE WE HEADED? IN HAWAII AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
NOW, LIVE IN OUR STUDIO, OUR HOST, DAN BOYLAN.>>DAN: ALOHA AND WELCOME TO INSIGHTS ON PBS
HAWAII. IM DAN BOYLAN.
THIS WEEK, WE MARC THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN, A SUPREME COURT DECISION
REGARDED AS A LANDMARK IN THE LONG DEBATE OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHT TO
GAY MARRIAGE. THE CONTROVERSY OVER SAMESEX MARRIAGE HAS
RAGED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, AS STATES AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVE PASSED LAWS TO LEGALIZE OR
OUTLAW IT T2 YEARS AGO, HAWAII PASSED A LAW PERMITTING CIVIL UNIONS THAT EXTENDED TO SAME
SEX CUMMINGS MANY BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE. THIS YEAR STATE LAWMAKERS NOT TO ADVANCE COMPETING
BILLS INTRODUCED TO LEGALIZE MARRIAGE TO SAME SEX COUPLES.
WED LIKE TO HEAR YOUR QUESTIONS DURING THE NEXT HOUR.
DO YOU WISH STATE LAWMAKERS WOULD HAVE TAKEN SOME ACTION THIS SESSION OR ARE YOU SATISFIED
WITH THE CIVIL UNIONS LAW? HOW WILL OUR STATE AND COUNTRY EVER REACH
ANY KIND OF CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE? YOU CAN JOIN OUR CONVERSATION BY CALLING,
EMAILING OR TWEETING YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FOR OUR GUESTS.
THE CONTACT INFORMATION YOU NOW SEE ON YOUR SCREEN WILL BE REPEATED THROUGHOUT THE PROGRAM.
INSIGHT IS ALSO STREAMING LIVE ON YOUR COMPUTER RIGHT NOW AND WILL BE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE
FOLLOWING THIS PROGRAM. LIKE OUR BROADCAST, THE STREAMED VERSION IS
CLOSED CAPTIONED. NOW TO OUR GUESTS, STEVEN LEVINSON RETIRED
FROM THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT IN 2008. AFTER SERVING AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE FOR 16
YEARS. HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
AND THEN TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT BY THEN GOVERNOR JOHN WAIHEE.
IN HIS SECOND YEAR IN THE HIGH COURT, JUSTICE LEVINSON WROTE THE BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN DECISION
THAT WE WILL REVIEW IN A MOMENT. JAMES HOCHBERG IS AN ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE,
HE IS LOCAL COUNSEL FOR ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM IN A CURRENT CASE KNOWN AS JACKSON
VERSUS ABERCROMBIE WHICH HE WILL EXPLAIN IN A COUPLE OF MORE MOMENTS.
JIM IS ALSO PRESIDENT OF HAWAII FAMILY ADVOCATES AND PRO BONO ATTORNEY FOR THE HAWAII FAMILY
FORUM. RENEA STEWART HAS BEEN WITH HER PARTNER LISA
FOR 19 YEARS. THEY DECLINEED TO GET A CIVIL UNION AFTER
CIVIL UNIONS BECAME LEGAL IN HAWAII LAST YEAR. AND CONTINUE TO WAIT FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MARRY IN HAWAII. RENEE IS AN EMMY DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER SPECIALIZING
IN PACIFIC ISLAND THEMED PROGRAMS. GLENN STANTON IS DIRECTOR OF FAMILY FORMATION
STUDIES WITH FOCUS ON THE FAMILY. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION BASED IN COLORADO THAT
PROVIDES CHRISTIAN CENTERED GUIDANCE FOR FAMILIES. HE IS ALSO A RESEARCH FELLOW AT THE INSTITUTE
OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY. GLENN HAS AUTHORED A NUMBER OF BOOKS AND TRAVELS
THE COUNTRY SPEAKING ON ISSUES OF GENDER, SEXUALITY, MARRIAGE, AND PARENTING.
SONG THAT STARTS 20 YEARS AGO. SOMETHING LIKE THAT I DONT KNOW IF THIS WAS
THE DAY. JUSTICE LEVINSON, YOU WERE THERE, YOU WROTE
THE OPINION IN BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN AND WEVE BEEN TALKINGING ABOUT IT SEEMS TO ME EVER
SINCE IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER. GIVE US A LITTLE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT TO
THAT DECISION AND WHERE WE WENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER.
A.WELL, ACTUALLY, IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. SUNDAY, CINCO DE MAYO WAS THE DATE ON WHICH
THE OPINION WAS FILED. ALTHOUGH IT WAS ARGUED THE YEAR BEFORE IN
SEPTEMBER†1992. 3 COUPLES IN THE HAWAII WANTED TO GET MARRIED
AND THAT WAS UNUSUAL ONLY IN THAT EACH COUPLE WAS A SAME SEX COUPLE.
THEY REFUSED MARRIAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND SUED THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSES IN
HAWAII. FOR REFUSING TO GRANT THEM THE LICENSES AND
PERMIT THEM TO MARRY. THEY ARGUED THAT THE HAWAII MARRIAGE LAWS
WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE HAWAII CONSTITUTION INSOFAR AS THEY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEM
AS SAME SEX COUPLES AND THEREFORE, VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS RIGHT TO THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND ALSO, THE RIGHT TO THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
THE CASE DIDNT GET VERY FAR AT THE CIRCUIT COURT LEVEL.
PLAINTIFFS FILED THEIR COMPLAINT. THE DEFENDANT ANSWERED.
THE DEFENDANT FILED A MOTION IN THE TRIAL COURT.
FOR WHATS CALLED JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. AND THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION.
BASICALLY, RULING THAT GIVEN THE FACINGS THAT THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED IN THEIR COMPLAINT,
THERE WAS NO CONCEIVABLE THEORY UNDER WHICH THEY COULD PREVAIL ULTIMATELY AT TRIAL.
THE PLAINTIFFS APPEALED TO THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT AND IN MAY OF 1993, THE COURT HELD IN
A PACKAGE OF OPINIONS, BUT THE LEAD OPINION HELD THAT WHICH I WROTE, THAT THE HAWAII MARRIAGE
LAWS PRESUMPTIVELY VIOLATED THE STATES EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE INSOFAR AS THAT PROVISION
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX, AND THAT THE STATE THEREFORE
BORE THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A COMPELLING INTEREST IN THAT SEX DISCRIMINATION WHICH
IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET AT TRIAL. SO WE VACATED THE CIRCUIT COURTS ORDER AND
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DIRECTOR LINE. WE MANNED THE MATTER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT,
FOR TRIAL. AND IT ULTIMATELY WENT TO TRIAL IN 1996.
>>BUT THAT OPINION, FIRST HOLDING THAT YOU HAD IS THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SAME
SEX MARRIAGE IN HAWAII. THEN YOU MOVED OVER TO THE BENEFITS OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION COLOSSIANS. AM I REMEMBERING IT CORRECTLY?
>>WE TOOK ONE CLAIM AT A TIME. THERE WAS NOT A PLURALITY ON THE PANEL THAT
HEARD THE APPEAL THAT WAS PERSUADED BY THE PLAINTIFF PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT, AND
SO WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE
TO BE FOUND IN THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.
SO THEN WE MOVED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A COLORABLE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAIM AND THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE A COMPELLING INTEREST
IN THE DISCRIMINATION THAT WAS PLAIN ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE AND THE STATE FAILED TO
DO IT. WHEN THE MATTER FINALLY WENT TO TRIAL IN 1996,
IT WAS REALLY A BATTLE OF THE EXPERTS. THERE WERE VERY FEW FACTS.
NONE WERE IN DISPUTE. THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO THEM.
THE PLAINTIFF HAD 2 EXPERT WITNESSES. DEFENSE HAD 2 EXPERT WITNESSES.
THE ISSUE AT TRIAL, THE STATES CLAIM OF A COMPELLING INTEREST IN THE SEX DISCRIMINATION
WAS THAT CHILD REARING ULTIMATELY TAKES PLACE IN A NUCLEAR FAMILY SETTING WITH ONE MOM AND
ONE DAD, ULTIMATELY ON CROSSEXAMINATION, DIRECTOR LIU INEXPERTSABLED.
THEY CONCEDED THAT THERE WASNT ANY RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THAT SAME SEX COUPLES WERE ANY
LESS EFFECTIVE AT PARENTING THAN OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES AND THE TRIAL COURT, CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGE KEVIN CHANG WROTE AN EXTENSIVE DECISION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND A JUDGMENT FINDING THAT THE STATE HAD FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN.
AND THEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFFS PREVAILED AND THE STATES MARRIAGE LAWS WERE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
HE STAYED HIS JUDGMENT PENDING A SECOND APPEAL TO OUR COURT.
>>DAN: RENEA, YOU WERE PROBABLY ONLY ABOUT 12 YEARS OLD THEN.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE CASE WHEN THE DECISION CAME DOWN?
A.YEAH. I ACTUALLY DO.
>>DAN: DO YOU REMEMBER YOUR REACTION TO IT? AT THE TIME, I MEAN, I WAS SO IMPRESSED WITH
WHAT JUSTICE LEVINSON HAD DONE. IT WAS SUCH A PIVOTAL MOMENT IN OUR COUNTRYS
HISTORY. TODAY, RHODE ISLAND BECOMING THE 10TH STATE
TO STAND ON RIGHT SIDE OF JUSTICE. ON THIS DAY.
FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY. SO I REALLY, I THINK SPEAKS VOLUMES TO WHERE
WEVE COME FROM. WHAT I WAS REALLY SURPRISED AT IS HOW THE
STATE, ENACT THE BAN. RIGHT AFTER JUSTICE DID SO MUCH GREAT WORK.
WHATS SURPRISING†>>DAN: IT WAS 4 YEARS LATER IF IM NOT MISTAKEN,
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.>>RIGHT.
THE BAN. BUT I MEAN,?
A.FIVE YEARS.>>NOTHING HAPPENED IN BETWEEN WHERE WE WERE
GRANTED MARRIAGE EQUALITY. SO THE REASON IT SURPRISED ME SO MUCH IS BECAUSE
MY PARTNER WAS BORN AND RAISE IN HAWAII. AND THATS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE REASONS THAT
I MOVED TO HAWAII. BESIDES THE ALOHA SPIRIT OF THE STATE, BESIDES
THE WONDERFUL HAWAIIAN CULTURE, I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED HOW PROGRESSIVE THIS STATE HAS ALWAYS
BEEN. YOU TAKE LEADERS LIKE PATSY T MINK WITH TITLE
IX, AND WOMENS RIGHTS ISSUES, AND IT JUST WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTING TO SEE THAT THERE
WASNT MORE ACCEPTANCE.>>DAN: JIM YOU WERE AROUND THEN.
WHAT WAS REACTION WHEN BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN CAME DOWN?
A.I WAS A MUCH YOUNGER MAN.>>DAN: OF COURSE.
AS WE WERE ALL WERE.>>WELL, I THINK AS I READ THE OPINION, I
THOUGHT IT WAS VERY INTERESTING THAT THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE
IN THE STATE OF HAWAII. UNDER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OR OTHERWISE IS
THE PHRASING. BUT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITHHOLDING
BENEFITS WHICH VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION. BECAUSE BACK THEN, THE CONVERSATION IN THE
PUBLIC SQUARE SHIFTED TO BENEFITS. AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, THAT WENT THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, IN 96, 97, THE RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARIES ACT
ALSO CAME THROUGH WHICH GAVE PEOPLE WHO COULDNT MARRY BECAUSE ACTUALLY, MARRIAGE EQUALITY
IS NOT HAPPENING IN ROAD ISLAND BECAUSE SAME SEX COUPLES CAN MARRY AND HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES
CAN MARRY. THERES STILL RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY IS KIND OF A MISNOMER. MARRIAGE EQUALITY WOULD SAY, DADS CAN MARRY
THEIR DAUGHTERS AND BROTHERS CAN MARRY THEIR SISTERS BECAUSE THERES MARRIAGE EQUAL, EQUALITY.
TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF I DONT KNOW, ITS NOT REALLY MARRIAGE EQUALITY THAT WERE TALKING
ABOUT. BUT AND I ACTUALLY FILED AN AMICAS BRIEF IN
THE BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN WITH THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE.
ABOUT THIS THICK. BACK THEN, THE AIDS MEDICAL RESEARCH ON THE
LEXUS NEXUS MEDICAL SITE WAS PUSH LIVING TONS AND TONS OF STUFF ABOUT AGE.
WE WERE ARGUING THATS A COMPELLING REASON TO SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
I DONT KNOW WHAT THAT I WOULD DO THAT TODAY, BUT WERE TALKING 1993.
SO I WAS PLEASED WITH THE, PARDON OF OPINION, THAT RECOGNIZED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A
MAN AND WOMAN. AND I WAS PUZZLED POLITICALLY HOW WE WERE
GOING TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER PART, AND RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARIES LAW HAD SOME BENEFITS, BUT NOT
ALL. AND IT WAS OPEN TO EVERYBODY.
IT WAS REALLY MARRIAGE EQUALITY. EVERYBODY THAT WASNT ALLOWED TO MARRY COULD
BECOME A RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARY, FATHERS AND DAUGHTERS AND MOMS AN SONS.
ALL OF THAT STUFF. IT DIDNT HAVE A SEXUALITY ASPECT TO IT.
>>DAN: YOU KNOW, I CAN REMEMBER THAT PERIOD VERY, VERY WELL BECAUSE I CAN STILL REMEMBER
WRITING A COLUMN ON WHICH I SORT OF SAID, SUPREME COURT, WHEN THEYRE DEALING WITH SOMETHING
THIS BIG, THEY SHOULDNT HAD A 32 DECISION ON THIS.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WORKED OUT AND THEY HAD 50 DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS
SO BIG, I CRITICIZED LEVINSON I THINK. I WAS SUCH A BOLD COLUMNIST.
MUST BE PRETTY ROUTINELY DISAPPOINT THE IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
>>DAN: 54 DECISIONS. YEAH, I AM.
PARTICULAR I AM ON VERY IMPORTANT MATTERS. NONETHELESS, THAT 5 YEARS AFTER THAT, BETWEEN
THERE AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, THAT WAS ONE WHERE THE LEGISLATURE WAS JUST TIED
UP IN KNOTS, LARGE, IT SEEMED TO ME, WHENEVER I WENT DOWN THERE, AND LARGELY IT WAS OVER
THIS DEBATE. OVER SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
WE WERE THE FIRST TO COME DOWN WITH A DECISION LIKE THAT.
RIGHT? IN THE COUNTRY?
STATE SUPREME COURT?>>THATS RIGHT.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE FIRST IN THE WORLD. A.NO.
I THINK MINNESOTA DEALT WITH THAT IN 1970, 1971.
BAKER V NELSON. BAKER V NELSON, WAS ONE OF FOUR STATE COURT
LAWSUITS THAT WENT TO THE APPELLATE LEVEL AND RESULTED IN PUBLISHED OPINIONS.
ONE WAS BAKER. ONE CAME OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
ONE CAME OUT OF KENTUCKY. ONE CAME OUT OF WASHINGTON STATE.
ALL FOUR OF THOSE WENT THE OTHER WAY. SO BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN I THINK WE ALL AGREE
WAS THE FIRST APPELLATE DECISION EVER TO RULE THAT A STATES MARRIAGE LAWS WERE PRESUMPTIVELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY VIRTUE OF NOT GIVING ACCESS TO THE STATUS OF MARRIAGE TO SAME SEX COUPLES.
>>DAN: IM SORRY. GO AHEAD.
>>ITS INTERESTING. THE STATUS OF MARRIAGE, SAME SEX COUPLES,
COUPLES DO NOT HOLD RIGHTS. INDIVIDUALS HOLD RIGHTS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE EQUALITY, I THINK ITS ACTUALLY MORE ACCURATE, MARRIAGE REDEFINITION
BECAUSE WHEN ANYBODY GOES TO THE COURT IN THEIR COUNTY, THEY DONT ASK YOU WHAT YOUR
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS. THEY DONT ASK YOU WHAT YOUR STORY IS.
THEY DONTWHAT YOUR STORY IS. THEY DONT CARE.
MARRIAGE AS ITS DEFINED TREATS EVERYBODY EQUALLY. NOW, SAME SEX COUPLES DO NOT WANT TO MARRY
UNDER CURRENT LAW. SO THEY HAVE TO REDEFINE WHAT MARRIAGE IS
IN ORDER TO MARRY UNDER IT. I MEAN, SO LETS BE HONEST AND LETS BE CLEAR.
>>IM NOT SURE I FOLLOW YOU. WHEN YOU SAY THAT SAME SEX COUPLES DONT WANT
TO MARRY UNDER CURRENT LAW.>>THEY DONT.
A.WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? A.IF ANY OF US GO TO GET MARRIED TOMORROW,ND
WE SHOW UP AND WE SAY, ID LIKE TO GET MARRIED, THE COURT DOESNT ASK US OUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
OUR SEXUAL PREFERENCES. ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEY DONT DISCRIMINATE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS IS THERE A MAN OR A
WOMAN. SAME SEX COUPLES DONT WANT TO MARRY UNDER
THAT SORT OF DEFINITION. RIGHT?
>>WE MADE THAT VERY POINT IN BAEHR.>>RIGHT.
>>THATS WHY THE TERM GAY MARRIAGE IS REALLY A MISS NEW HOMER OR HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
IS A MISNOMER.>>REDEFINE MARRIAGE, TO SAY, MARRIAGE IS
NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT MALE AND FEMALE. THIS IS AN ISSUE OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE AND
THATS NOT A NEGATIVE THING OR A POSITIVE THING. BUT LETS BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT THE WERE TALKING
ABOUT. ITS ABOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE.
ITS NOT ABOUT MARRIAGE EQUALITY. BECAUSE MARRIAGE AS ITS DEFINED UNDER THE
LAW ALLOWS ANYBODY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO MARRY SOMEBODY OF THE SAME SEX, WHETHER I WANT TO
DO THAT, ANYBODY, YOU CANT DO THAT. YOUVE GOT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
SO LETS BE VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE RADICALLY AND PERMANENTLY TALKING ABOUT REDEFINING A
FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN INSTITUTION WITH REEL WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC DEBATE ON THIS SUBJECT.
>>DAN: WEVE HAD A FAIR AMOUNT OF PUBLIC DEBATE IN THE STATE, GLENN.
I DONT KNOW ABOUT COLORADO. BUT WE HAVE HERE.
A.IM NOT AN EXPERT AND I PRETEND TO KNOW THE LAWS AS WELL AS YOU GENTLEMEN DO.
BUT WHAT I CAN SAY TO THAT IS I JUST REMEMBER IN 1967, IN OUR HISTORY, AND CORRECT ME IF
IM WRONG, WAS LOVING VERSUS VIRGINIA WHEN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS
COUNTRY AND I MEAN, TO ME, WHAT THE YOURE SAYING THEN WOULD APPLY THEN TOO.
>>NOT AT ALL. BECAUSE SEE, LOVING VERSUS VIRGINIA TOOK MARRIAGE
AND USED IT FOR SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TO KEEP THE RACES APART.
MARRIAGE IS ABOUT BRINGING MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER. AND LOVING VERSUS VIRGINIA REEL AFFIRMED MARRIAGE
THAT SAYS THAT ANY MAN AND ANY WOMAN CAN GET MARRIED AND COME TOGETHER.
THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE DOES. MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT KEEPING†
>>SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.>>REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
>>NOT AT ALL. IN 1949, 30 OF THE 48 AMERICAN STATES DEFINED
MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME RACE.
BEAR WITH ME. INCLUDING YOUR STATE, I MIGHT ADD, COLORADO,
AND CALIFORNIA, AND 28 OTHERS. IM ACTUALLY FROM HAWAII.
A.I GATHERED THAT YOU WERE BORN IN LOS ANGELES, BUT WE WONT HOLD THAT AGAINST YOU.
>>IN ANY TI EVENT, WHEN THE VIRGINIA TRIAL JUDGE SENTENCED THE LOVINGSES TO 25 YEARS
IN PRISON, FOR HAVING THE AUDACITY TO BE MARRIED TO ONE ANOTHER, AND SETTING FOOT IN THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA, SUSPENDING THE 25 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY LEAVE THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA AND NEVER RETURN, THE COURT EXPLAINED ITS REASONING THIS WAY.
ALMIGHTY GOD CREATED THE RACES WHITE, BLACK, YELLOW, MALE AND RED.
AND HE PLACED THEM ON SEPARATE CONTINENTS AND BUT FOR THE INTERFERENCE WITH HIS ARRANGEMENT,
THERE WOULD BE NO CAUSE FOR SUCH MARRIAGES. THE FACT THAT HE SEPARATED THE RACES SHOWS
THAT HE DID NOT INTEND FOR THE RACES TO MIX. SO SAME RACE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEFINITION
OF MARRIAGE IN AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE STATES IN AMERICA, UNTIL THE LOVING COUPLE
WITH A MAN AND WOMAN.>>IN LOVING, IT WAS A MAN AND WOMAN, WHICH
WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESUMED AS IT WAS IN HAWAII, BEFORE YOUR OPINION MADE US CHANGE OUR STATUTE.
ACTUALLY, I HEAR THAT QUOTE QUOTED ALL THE TIME.
I MEAN, IT REALLY COMES OUT OF THE TALKING POINTS THAT, OKAY, THERE WAS THIS INCREDIBLY
IGNORANT RATIONALE FOR WHY WE SHOULD HANG ON TO THESE LAWS.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF SOMETHING IS ARGUED FOR SOMETHING, IN A HORRIBLE WAY, THIS ENWE
NEVER SHOULD ARGUE FOR IT IN A REASONABLE WAY.
BECAUSE SOME, YOU KNOW, REALLY, KUWAIT LITERALLY LUNATICS HAD THIS VERY CRAZY VIEW OF WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN IF WE LET PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES.
LOVING WAS NOT ABOUT KEEPING THE RACES APART. IT WAS ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE.
AND IT WAS ABOUT WHITE RACIAL PURITY. AND THAT, FOLKS, WAS WRONG.
IT WAS WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL. BUT MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT FUNDAMENTALLY KEEPING
THE RACES APART. ITS ABOUT BRINGING MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER.
AND THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORTED MARRIAGE.>>COURT DIDNT KNOW IT WAS WRONG.
>>THEY WERE WRONG. AND THE SUPREME COURT†
>>IGNORANT THOUGHT PROCESSES, BELIEF SYSTEMS IS THAT WHEN THEYRE IN VOGUE, THEY ARENT REGARDED
AS CRAZY OR IGNORANT. THIS JUDGE FERVENTLY BELIEVED THAT HE KNEW
WHAT GOD INTENDED. WHAT GOD INTENDED ABOUT MARRIAGE.
ONE OF THE CENTRAL TENETS THAT GOD HELD MOST DEAR WAS THAT MARRIED PERSONS MUST NOT BE
OF DIFFERENT RACES. A.CITED IN THE LOVING DECISION BECAUSE ITS
A LUDICROUS ARGUMENT.>>DAN: LET ME INTERFERE FOR A MOMENT.
IM NOT SURE WERE BEING TO WORK THIS ONE OUT. ID LIKE TO TURN TO ANOTHER ASPECT OF IT.
BE THAT, BE WHEREVER WE ARE ON REDEFINING, HASNT THE CULTURE AND THE SOCIETY BAEHR VERSUS
LEWIN WAS A LANDMARK DECISION AND THEN THE LEGISLATURE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT AND THEN WE
END UP WITH RECIPROCAL BENEFITS, I BELIEVE, AND THEN WE, NOW, WE HAVE AS OF THE FIRST
OF THIS YEAR, CIVIL UNIONS. BUT DOESNT THE CULTURE REDEFINE THINGS TOO?
I MEAN, PEOPLE FEELING FREE ABOUT COMING OUT AND ADMITTING THEIR SEXUALITY WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS NOT AS PREVALENT IN 1993 AS IT WAS TODAY.
OR AND WE HAVE NOW I THINK CERTAINLY AMONG YOUNGER PEOPLE, THE ACCEPTANCE OF SEXUALITY
IS MUCH DIFFERENT. ARENT WE REDEFINING MARRIAGE, ARENT YOUNG
PEOPLE REDEFINING MARRIAGE? IM HAVING TROUBLE FINDING YOUNG PEOPLE, ANY
OF THEM, HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL, WHO WANT TO GET MARRIED AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO.
ITS INCREDIBLE. LIVING TOGETHER FOR LONG PERIODS AND NOT,
IF THEY MARRY, HAVING CHILDREN. IS THAT A REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?
ISNT THAT A REDEFINITION? A.HETEROSEXUALS REDEFINED MARRIAGE FIRST AND
THAT WAS THREW NO FAULT DIVORCE, SAYING TIL DEATH DO US PART REALLY DOESNT MATTER.
RONALD REAGAN WAS THE FIRST GOVERNOR IN OUR NATION TO SIGN INTO LAW OUR FIRST NO FAULT
DIVORCE LAW. THAT WAS A RADICAL REDEFINITION OF WHAT MARRIAGE
IS. AND IT HAS BEEN AND UTTER FAILURE.
YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY DONT SAY, OH, IM SO GLAD MY PARENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO BREAK UP.
DONT MISUNDERSTAND ME. IM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A HORRIBLE
THING TO HAVE HAPPEN. IM JUST SAYING THAT IT HAPPENED FOR GOOD OR
ILL.>>SOME CHANGES ARE GOOD.
SOME CHANGES ARE BAD.>>BUT ITS HAPPENED.
A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE PROBABLY AS WELL EDUCATED AND SENSITIVE AS YOU AND I, HAVE MADE THOSE
KINDS OF DECISIONS. AND BOY, YOU SEE IT EVERYWHERE AND† I DONT
KNOW WHETHER THE REDEFINITION ARGUMENT, WHETHER THAT CAN TAKE US ANYWHERE.
WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE NOW. 20 YEARS.
A.WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION. IS THE REDEFINITION GOOD AND THE TIMES THAT
WE HAVE REDEFINED FAMILY FORMATION, THATS THE RESEARCH THAT I DO FULLTIME, WHEN WE REDEFINE
HOW FAMILIES ARE FORMED, COHABITATION, DIVORCE, STEP FAMILIES, THINGS LIKES THAT, ARE THEY
GOOD THINGS? DO THEY PROMOTE HUMAN WELLBEING?
NOT JUST DO THEY MEET THE DESIRES OF THOSE PARTICULAR ADULTS.
BUT DO THEY SERVE THE WELLBEING OF CHILDREN? DO THEY MAKE US BETTER MEN AND WOMEN?
DO THEY STRENGTHEN THE SOCIETY? NONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WEVE SEEN UP TIL
NOW, WHETHER IT BE DIVORCE, SINGLE PARENTING, FATHERLESSNESS, COHABITATION, NONE OF THOSE
HAVE SERVED TO HELP OR IMPROVE HUMAN WELK. BUT DIMINISH IT SIGNIFICANTLY.
>>RENEA HAS SAME SEX MARRIAGE HURT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IN YOUR MIND OR ITS BEEN A BAD
THING? A.WELL, NO.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. AI AM JUST AN EVERY DAY PERSON.
I GO TO WORK EVERY DAY. I PAY MY TAXES.
I HAVE A MORTGAGE. I JUST WANT TO HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION FOR MY
FAMILY.>>EVERY DAY?
A.I AM. SO ORDINARY.
AND THATS IT. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, I MEAN, SOME
OF THESE ARGUMENTS THAT YOURE SAYING ARE THAT WE CANT HAVE THIS HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, MARRIAGE
EQUALITY AND YOU DONT WANT TO CALL IT MARRIAGE EQUALITY, BUT THATS REALLY WHAT IT IS.
YOU DONT WANT TO CALL IT THAT BECAUSE BROTHER WILL MARRY HIS SISTER OR THIS WILL HAPPEN.
A.THATS MARRIAGE EQUALITY. POLYGAMIST INDIVIDUALS DONT HAVE MARRIAGE
EQUALITY.>>RIGHT.
>>WHAT IM SAYING IS I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN SAY YOUNG GAY MEN AND WOMEN CAN
SERVE THIS COUNTRY, THEY CAN GO TO WAR, THEY CAN FIGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY, WE CAN PAY OUR
TAXES, BUT WE DONT GET EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
HOW IS THAT FAIR? A.POLYGAMISTS CAN SAY THE SAME THING.
>>IM NOT A POLYGAMIST. A.YOU DONT HAVE TO BE.
BUT THEY ARE MAKING†>>THE QUESTION THATS BEFORE US IS WHETHER
PERSONS WHO ARE IN A LOVING COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP OUGHT TO BE ENTITLED TO GET MARRIED WHEN THEY
ARENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ELIGIBLE IN ALL RESPECTS BUT FOR THE FACT THATS THEY ARE NOT
AN OPPOSITE SEX COUPLE. COUPLE.
THAT IS ONE CRITERIA FOR MARRIAGE THAT WERE SAYING WE SHOULD DO AWAY WITH THAT AND WE
SHOULD LET THEM GET MARRIED. BUT ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU JUST MADE,
WERE HARD WORKING CITIZENS, WE OBEY THE LAW, WE SHOW UP AT WORK EVERY DAY, THERE ARE OTHER
PEOPLE THAT ARE SERIOUSLY MAKING THOSE ARGUMENTS AND THERE ARE LAWYERS SERIOUS LAWYERS AT GEORGETOWN,
THAT ARE ARGUING FOR, IF WERE GOING TO ALLOW THIS KIND OF MARRIAGE, WE SHOULD ALLOW POLYGAMISTS,
LAW ABIDING POLYGAMISTS, GOOD PEOPLE, WOULD WANT TO ENTER THESE KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS,
WE OUGHT TO ALLOW THEM TO MARRY. AND THE PROP 8 ARGUMENT JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS
AGO, THEY ASKED THAT QUESTION. THEY SAID, WELL, IF WERE GOING DO ALLOW THIS,
WHAT IS THE COMPELLING FACTOR THAT WOULD MAKE US PROHIBIT POLYGAMY?
WERE NOT ARGUING FOR POLYGAMY. BUT ITS THE ISSUE IF IF WERE GOING TO MAKE
THE CRITERIA OF PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO MARRIAGE AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY, WE HAVE
TO SAY, OKAY, WHO GETS EXCLUDED FROM THAT? AND WHY?
>>AT THIS POINT, WERE REALLY DEBATING THE NUMBER OF ANGELS DANCING ON THE HEAD OF A
PIN. THE FACT IS THAT IN 2011, THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE
ENACTED A CIVIL UNION LAW THAT AFFORDED TO ELIGIBLE SAME SEX COUPLES CONSISTING GENERICALLY
OF COUPLES WHO WOULD SATISFY ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS PREREQUISITES FOR MARRIAGE UNDER THE CURRENT
LAW, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY ARE SAME SEX COUPLES.
THE STATUS OF CIVIL UNIONS, ATTACHED TO THE STATUS OF CIVIL UNION WERE ALL OF THE RIGHTS
AND BENEFITS AND DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS THAT THE STATE OF HAWAII CONFERS ON MARRIED PEOPLE.
AND SO THE QUESTION THATS FACING PEOPLE IN HAWAII IS WHY IT IS THEN THAT THOSE SAME SEX
COUPLES WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE INCLUDING CHILD REARING, SHOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO MARRY. THE FACT IS THAT A LOT OF WATER HAS PASSED
UNDER THE BRIDGE SINCE THE BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN DECISION CAME DOWN IN 1993.
AND IN THE UNITED STATES, NOW, TODAY, IN MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MAINE,
MARYLAND, RHOADS ISLAND, NEW YORK, IOWA, WASHINGTON AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SAME SEX COUPLES
MAY MARRY. CALIFORNIA, I PREDICT, WILL BE BACK IN THE
SAME SEX MARRIAGE COLUMN AS OF JUNE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
DELAWARE IS COMING. ILLINOIS IS COMING.
NEVADA IS COMING. MINNESOTA IS COMING.
OREGON IS COMING. AND HAWAII IS COMING TOO.
I THINK VERY LIKELY, AT THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR.
AT THE SAME TIME, VIRTUALLY ALL OF WESTERN EUROPE, ARGENTINA, SOUTH AFRICA, NEW ZEALAND,
BRAZIL, MEXICO, RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE. WERE BEYOND THE POINT OF THEORETICAL DISCUSSION
OF WHAT IS IDEAL.>>DAN: LET ME ASK ONE REAL QUICK QUESTION.
WHY AS JUSTICE LEVINSON JUST POINTED OUT, THE CIVIL UNIONS ARE GIVING TO COUPLES, WHY
DIDNT YOU† I DONT GET IT. THATS A GOOD QUESTION.
BOUGHT WE WANT THE RIGHT TO BE MARY I HAD. WE WANT TO BE MARRIED.
WE WANT TO BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY, NOT SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.
MARRIAGE IS ISNT ABOUT WHAT ADULTS WANT. A.MARRIAGE IS A CHOICE.
A.MARRIAGE IS WHAT CHILDREN NEED. THATS WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
A.WHAT ABOUT THE GENTLEMAN THAT ITS SITTING TO THE RIGHT OF ME THAT REMARRIED AFTER HIS
CHILDREN WAS RAISED, AFTER HIS WIFE HAD PASSED.>>PERFECTLY FINE.
>>BUT THEN THE ARGUMENT DOESNT STAND TRUE.>>IT DOES.
BECAUSE WHEN YOUNG PEOPLE ARE, CHILD BEARING, ITS THE CHILDREN THAT IS THE STATES INTEREST
IN MARRIAGE. ITS WHAT THE KIDS NEED.
NOT WHAT THE ADULTS WANT.>>I HEARD A POINT EARLIER YOU MADE.
YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, THE CHILDREN AND ITS ABOUT THE KIDS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE
GAY, RAISING CHILDREN, AND REALLY, I BELIEVE AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE, THAT
RAISING GOOD CHILDREN WHO BECOME GOOD CONTRIBUTORS TO SOCIETY OR A COMMUNITY IS USUALLY BECAUSE
YOU MENTOR THEM WELL, BECAUSE YOU GIVE THEM GOOD FUNDAMENTAL VALUES.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.>>IT DOES HAVE TO DO WITH A FORM OF THE FARMLY.
SINGLE MOMS LOVE THEIR KIDS. THEYRE INVOLVED.
DIVORCED PARENTS, STEP PARENTS, LOVE THEIR KIDS.
BUT WHAT WE FIND OUT THROUGH THE RESEARCH THAT WHEN KIDS ARE BEING RAISED BY SOMEBODY
WHO IS NOT EITHER THEIR BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE MOTHER AND FATHER, THEY FACE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS.
ITS NOT BECAUSE THOSE HOMES LACK LOVE. OR COMMITMENT.
ITS THE FORM OF THE FAMILY THAT REALLY DOES MATTER.
AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
THATS IMPORTANT. I THINK ITS INTERESTING WHAT WERE TALKING
ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT THE CIVIL UNIONS IS STEVE, YOU SAID THAT THE STATE PASSED THAT CIVIL
UNION LAW. WHO WAS IT THAT WAS PUSHING AN ADVOCATING
FOR THAT? IT WAS THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY I THINK.
>>THATS CORRECT. MAKING IT CLEAR, INCIDENTALLY, THAT CIVIL
UNIONS WAS A WEIGH STATION THAT THE END POINT WAS MARRIAGE.
THERE WAS NEVER QUESTION ABOUT THAT.>>THEY MADE IT BASED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT
WE NEED THESE LEGAL AGAIN FITS. WE NEED THESE LEGAL PROTECTIONS.
THE LEGAL PROTECTIONS ARE THERE. THE LEGAL BENEFITS ARE THERE.
AND I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF COUPLES LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND UNDERSTANDABLY WHO SAY, YOU
KNOW WHAT? ITS NOT ABOUT THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS.
OR THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. ITS ABOUT MARRIAGE ITSELF.
YOU KNOW WHAT? A.THERES 1100 FEDERAL BENEFITS WERE NOT GIVEN
BECAUSE OF DOMA.>>OVER 1100.
A.THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEYRE MINOR THINGS. I MEAN, IVE LOOKED AT THAT WHOLE LIST.
A.WE CAN AGREE THERE ARE A LOT. A.SOCIAL SECURITY?
A.DEATH BENEFIT.>>I LIKE THE WORD SLEW.
>>IF THESE ARE LIFE AND DEATH KIND OF THINGS THAT THESE COUPLES NEED THESE, THEN WHY DO
WE THINK ITS A BAD THING NOW THAT WE GAVE THEM THROUGH CIVIL UNIONS?
AND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF COUPLES EXACTLY LIKE YOU AND YOUR PARTNER WHO SAY, WE ARE
NOT GOING TO AVAIL OURSELVES OF THESE THINGS. WERE GOING TO WAIT TIL WE HAVE MARRIAGE.
WELL, WHEN YOURE IN A PLACE WHERE YOU REALLY HAVE NEEDS, YOU AVAIL YOURSELF OF OF NEEDS
THAT ARE THERE. I THINK IT GOES TO THE ARGUMENT THAT I SEE
A LOT, ITS NOT SO MUCH THE NEEDS THEMSELVES. ITS ABOUT THE SYMBOLISM OF WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
BECAUSE THERES PRACTICALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL UNIONS WHAT THEY DO.
AND WHAT MARRIAGE DOES. A.GLENN, IF YOU HAD BEEN HERE 3 YEARS AGO,
LAST TIME WE GOT TOGETHER TO ARGUE ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS.
YOU WOULD HAVE OPPOSE THEM TOO, RIGHT? A.CIVIL UNIONS?
A.ABSOLUTELY.>>DAN: WHY NOT CHANGE THE LAW?
>>NOW LEADING ADVOCATES, I MEAN, I DONT KNOW ANY LEADING THEORISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO
THINKS CIVIL UNIONS ARE A GOOD THING. A.THATS NOT TRUE.
>>WHO? CAN YOU NAME ONE?
>>ANY GAY OR LESBIAN ADVOCATE NOW ON THE SCENE THINKING CIVIL UNIONS ARE A BAD THING.
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER CIVIL UNIONS ARE ENOUGH. YOU JUST IDENTIFIED THE REASON WHY THE LABEL
IS NOT ENOUGH. THE STATUS OF MARRIAGE†
>>THE COMMUNITY SEES IT AS A BAD THING.>>CARRIES A SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE.
>>ABSOLUTELY. NOT ABOUT THE STUFF THEN.
>>DIGNITARY VALUE, IF YOU WILL, I MEAN, AS A REMEDY TO WHAT YOU CHARACTERIZE AS THE IGNORANCE
OF MOSOGINAION LAWS. ANTIMIXED RACE MARRIAGE LAWS.
WOULD HAVE BEEN CREATE A SEPARATE STATUS. FOR REGULAR PEOPLE, WELL HAVE MARRIAGE.
AND FOR MIXED RACE PEOPLE, WELL CREATE A NEW STATUS AND WELL CALL IT INTERRACIAL UNION.
WELL, THATS ABSURD. A.IT IS ABSURD.
I COMPLETELY AGREE.>>THE REASONING IS THE SAME.
IF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE GIVEN A STATUS ON THE PAR WITH MARRIAGE, IN TERMS OF ACCESS
TO RIGHTS AND BENEFITS, THEN THERE REALLY IS NO THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR WITHHOLDING
THE DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LABEL MARRIAGE.
>>SO YOU JUST EFFECTIVELY MADE THE CASE THAT ITS NOT ULTIMATELY ABOUT THE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.
ITS ABOUT THE NAME OF MARRIAGE AND THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AND THE PLACE OF MARRIAGE.
>>ITS CLEARLY ABOUT THOSE. ID LIKE TO GET BACK TO A POINT THAT JIM MADE
WHEN HE SUGGESTED THAT CHILDREN ARE REALLY THE RESONVETRA, THE REASON FOR EXISTENCE OF
MARRIAGE. IT REMINDS ME OF WHEN MY LATE WIFE AND I WENT
THROUGH THE MARRIAGE ENCOUNTER PROGRAM IN 1979 WHICH I THANKFULLY CANNOT RECOMMEND TOO
HIGHLY. I THINK THE GREAT.
AND WE WENT THROUGH THE EPOSCOPAL EXPRESSION HERE, BECAUSE THEY HAD THE BEST PROGRAM.
AND THERE WAS A SESSION ON CHILD REARING. A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT
PEOPLE WERE HAVING RAISING THEIR KID ITS AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR KIDS AND SO ON.
AND ONE OF THE FACILITATORS OF THE WEEKEND SAID, YOU KNOW, MARRIAGE IS THE SACRAMENT,
NOT PARENT HOOD. WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT UNTIL 1984, ONE OF
THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES TO ELIGIBILITY FOR MARRIAGE IN HAWAII WAS PROCREATIONAL CAPACITY.
STATUTORY REQUIRED THAT NEITHER OF THE PARTIES IS IMPOTENT OR PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF ENTERING
INTO THE MARRIAGE STATE. AND THE LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE MARRIAGE LAW
TO DELETE THE PREREQUISITE OF PROCREATIONAL CAPACITY.
AND IN DOING IT, THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WROTE THAT THE NOTION THATS PRIMARY PURPOSE
IN MARRYING IS TO BEAR CHILDREN IS A NARROW AND OUTDATED VIEW.
>>WELL, JUDGE KAY, JUST LAST YEAR, RULED IN THE JACKSON V ABERCROMBIE CASE, HE GRANTED
HAWAII FAMILY FORUM, WHICH IM LOCAL COUNSEL FOR, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THERE IS NO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
HE INDICATED THAT THE STATES INTEREST IN MARRIAGE IS IN HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES WHO CAN ACCIDENTLY
PROCREATE. AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF NURTURE
THAT ARE GAY PARENTS PUT IN, THAT THE NURTURE AND STUFF THAT GOES WITHIN GAY FAMILIES, IS
BECAUSE IT WASNT WOULD BE ACCIDENTAL. THEY WORKED REALLY HARD AND VARIOUS DIFFERENT
SCIENTIFIC WAYS OR THEY ADOPTED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
JUDGE KAY GRANTED OUR MOTION. GRANTED THE STATES MOTION THROUGH THREW THE
CASE OUT AND ITS ON APPEAL.>>DAN: THATS JACKSON V ABERCROMBIE.
I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING, DAN. WHAT JUDGE KAY RULED, BECAUSE THE ISSUE BEFORE
HIM IN THAT RESPECT WAS WHAT WAS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW OF THE HAWAII MARRIAGE STATUTE.
THE PURPOSE IS OF DETERMINING ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. AND WHAT HE RULE WAS THAT THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE
COULD THEORETICALLY RATIONALLY, HAVE MADE THE VALUE JUDGMENT THAT OPPOSITE SEX MARRIAGE
SERVED THE STATES INTEREST IN ENCOURAGING RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION, OR CHILD REARING.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT, AND WHETHER OR NOT LEGISLATURE WAS CORRECT
IF IT ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT.>>DAN: LET ME MAKE A LITTLE TRANSITION HERE.
SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO COME DOWN WITH SOME SORT OF DECISION ON THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
ACT IN JUNE OR YOU THINK IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LATER ON THAT.
AND PROP 8. WE ARE IN A POSITION RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAVE
CIVIL UNIONS. WHAT AND CALIFORNIA IS IN LIMBO AT THE MOMENT.
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES THAT CAN COME OUT OF DOMA THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE BALLGAME?
I MEAN, ABERCROMBIE VERSUS† THATS STOPPED AT THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
EVERYBODY IS WAITING FOR THE SUPREME COURT. WHAT IS THE SUPREME COURT GOING TO MEAN IN
THIS? WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES?
A.YOU KNOW, I LISTEN TO THE PUNDITS WRITING BASED ON JUSTICE HAS ASKED IN ORAL ARGUMENT.
THEY TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEYRE GOING TO SAY AND ITS WRONG.
I MEAN, SO I FIGURE THEY CAN UP HOLD IT OR THROW IT OUT.
>>DAN: THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?>>
A.YES.>>DAN: WHATS YOUR GUESS?
I WENT DOWN AND HAD LUNCH WITH FOUR LAWYERS ONE DAY ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THE SUPREME COURT
WAS GOING TO DO ONE THING. AND ALL OF THEM SAID THEY WERING GO TO DO
SOMETHING ELSE. THEY WERE ALL RIGHT.
THEY WERE ALL RIGHT. THERE WAS A CASE, I DONT KNOW, FIVE, 10 YEARS
AGO AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. IT WAS LOPEZ CASE.
IT DEALT WITH CONGRESS ENACTING A HEIGHTENED CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF A GUN WITHIN
SO MANY FEET OF A SCHOOL THAT GETS PUBLIC FUNDS.
THIS LOPEZ GUY GOT BUSTED DOING SOMETHING BAD WITH A GUN WITHIN THAT GEOGRAPHIC DISTANCE.
HE CHALLENGED CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GUN POSSESSION WITHIN A DISTANCE
OF A SCHOOL. AND THE LOPEZ COURT, U.S. SUPREME COURT SAID,
THERE ARE A SERIES OF LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE STATE CONCERNS, NOT CONGRESS CONCERNS.
AMONG THOSE IS, THEY HAVE THIS LITTLE LITANY OF THINGS, MARRIAGE.
WHEN I SAW THAT, WHEN IT CAME OUT, I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WOW, THATS A LITTLE TIME BOMB SITTING
THERE TO THROW EVERYTHING BACK ON THE STATES. BUT BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED WITH ROE VS. WADE
IN THOSE ABORTIONS CASES THREW THE SUPREME COURT, EVERYBODY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OVER
AND WOULDNT BE AN ISSUE ANY MORE AND THIS IS HOW MANY YEARS LATER.
EVERY JANUARY†20TH, WHATEVER IT IS, ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE ARE UP IN ARMS
ABOUT IT. ACTUALLY STARTED THE DEBATE RATHER THAN†
>>WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN.>>I THINK JIM HAS REALLY PUT HIS FINGER ON
WHAT THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME OF THE DOMA IS CASE, WINDSOR CASE.
I LISTENED, READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT ORAL ARGUMENT VERY CAREFULLY AND LISTENED TO IT
ON AUDIO, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS GOING
TO DO EVEN WHEN THEY SEEM TO BE TIPPING THEIR HAND.
I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF HAND TIPPING GOING ON IN THAT ORAL ARGUMENT.
AND A LOT OF IT CAME FROM JUSTICE KENNEDY AS SO OFTEN HAPPENS.
>>DAN: HES THE SWING GUY USUALLY. SWING GUY OFTEN.
I THINK THAT THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME IS A MAJORITY MIGHT BE 54, IT COULD BE 63, BUT
MIGHT BE 54, KENNEDY LIKELY THE AUTHOR OF THE OPINION, HOLDING THAT SESSION 3 OF THE
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT WHICH CREATES THIS FEDERAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, AND WITHHOLDS
THE RIGHT TO FEDERAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT MEET THAT DEFINITION.
CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL INCURSION INTO THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF THE STATES TO DEFINE
MARRIAGE. AND THAT THEREFORE, DOMA VIOLATES PRINCIPLES
OF FEDERALISM AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I ALSO THINK ITS†
>>DAN: YOU AGREE WITH THAT? I THINK ITS A POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THE LOPEZ
CASE IS SITTING OUT THERE.>>AND KENNEDY EXPRESSLY FRETTED OUT LOUD
ABOUT HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD BE ENCROACHING ON THE PREROGATIVE.
WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT IN HAWAII, DID YOU ASK QUESTIONS NOT BECAUSE YOU WANTED
THE ANSWER, BUT BECAUSE YOU WANTED SOME COJUSTICE TO HEAR THE ANSWER?
A.CERTAINLY.>>THATS THE REASON WHY WE NEVER KNOW.
>>EXACTLY.>>DAN: WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE WATCHING US RIGHT
NOW AND THEY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. WE MUST GET TO THEM.
WHAT ABOUT MARRIED COUPLES WHO CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE KIDS?
DOES THAT MEAN THEYRE NOT FULFILLING THE REAL REASON FOR HAWAII?
NOT IN HAWAII. THAT WAS TAKEN OUT.
>>EXCEPTION. THEYRE THE EXCEPTION OF THE NORM IS FOR A
MAN AND WOMAN TO COME TOGETHER AND IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THEY WILL HAVE KIDS.
A.NORM IN YOUR OPINION.>>NO.
IT IS A NORM. ITS JUST THE FACTS OUT THERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, MOST MARRIED COUPLES AT SOME POINT IN THEIR MARRIAGE BRING FORTH
CHILDREN. OR ADOPT CHILDREN IN.
I MEAN, ITS JUST AN EMPIRICAL FACT WITH THE NUMBERS.
IT IS NOT THE NORM FOR SAME SEX COUPLES. I MEAN,.
>>WERE NOT AFFORD THE NORM. A.BY BIOLOGY.
RIGHT?>>ITS INTERESTING THAT I FIND, WHENEVER SOMEONE
SAYS THEYRE OPPOSED TO BEING MARRIED, OR FOR SAME SEX COUPLES, GENERALLY THE ARGUMENT IS
BASED ON RELIGION. I WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT.
>>NOT AT ALL. A.IM NOT SAYING YOURE SAYING THAT.
IF YOU DONT MIND P. ONE POINT. THAT IS THAT THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR WHAT
WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, WAS CREATED TO GIVE PEOPLE THE
RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION FREELY. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO TAKE PEOPLES RIGHT AS
WAY. ITS JUST FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY,
IN THIS STATE, TO ACTUALLY CREATE LEGISLATION OR ANY BILL THAT TAKES PEOPLES RIGHT AS WAY.
A.SO WOULD YOU AGREE, THEN, THAT MY CLIENT WHO HAS A BED AND BREAKFAST IN HAWAII KAI,
THAT IS A VERY DEVOUT CATHOLIC WOMAN, SHE AND HER HUSBAND ARE GRANDPARENTS, HAVE THEIR
BIG 4 BEDROOM HOUSE THATS EMPTY. THEY RENT 3 OF THE ROOMS OUT FROM TIME TO
TIME TO PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE THERE, WHEN SHE GOT A CALL, AND THE LADY IDENTIFIED HERSELF
AS A LESBIANND WANTED TO COME SLEEP IN THE SAME BED WITH HER GIRLFRIEND IN MY CLIENTS
HOUSE? A.MY CLIENT VERY MIGHTY SAID, IM A CHRISTIAN.
REALLY NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. CAN I REFER YOU TO MY FRIEND ACROSS THE STREET
ACTUALLY, HAS A NICER HOUSE THAN I DO ANYWAY, AND THAT WAS IN 2007.
SINCE 2008, THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
THAT PROCESS TOOK UNTIL 2011. WHEN THEY WHETHER GIVEN A NOTICE OF RIGHT
TO SUE MY CLIENT. SO NOW, THEY SUED MY CLIENT IN COURT WHEN
MY CLIENTS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WITH RESPECT TO THE BEDS IN HER HOUSE SHOULD BE PROTECTED
IS WHAT I THINK YOURE SAYING.>>IT DEPENDS.
SHES RUNNING A BUSINESS. THERE ARE CERTAIN LAWS AND GUIDELINES IN RUNNING
A BUSINESS. A.NO.
THERES ACTUALLY A STATUTE CHAPTER 515 IN HAWAII THAT SAYS, IF YOURE GOING TO ENTER INTO REAL
ESTATE TRANSACTIONS WHICH RENTING THOSE ROOMS ARE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, AND YOU LIVE
IN THE HOME WHERE ROOMS ARE AND YOU RENT FOUR OR FEWER, YOURE COMPLETEICALLY EXEMPT.
A.OKAY.>>WERE TALKING MARRIAGE HERE TONIGHT.
NOT RENTAL AGREEMENT.>>AM I A RELIGIOUS MINISTER.
THIS MAN INMINISTERRED MARY COUPLE FOR 30 YEARS.
BECAUSE IM GAY, I CANT GET MARRIED. IF HETEROSEXUAL ONLY HAD CIVIL UNIONS AND
HOMOSEXUALS COULD MARRY, HETEROSEXUALS WOULD HAVE A FIT.
ITS NOT FAIR. CARL KAREN MEYER ON THE BIG ISLAND.
TOM IN HILO WONDERS, IF THE LEWIN V BEAR DECISION, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME, ELECTED JUDGES INSTEAD
OF APPOINTED JUDGES, WHAT IF THEY HAD HAD TO FACE REELECTION?
JUDGE. A.YOURE ASKING ME THAT?
>>DAN: YES.>>I THINK THAT ELECT THE JUDICIARIES AND
THERE ARE ABOUT 38 OF THEM, 38 STATES HAVE ELECT THEIR JUDGES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, ONE
OF THE WORST IDEAS THAT WAS EVER IMPLEMENTED. THE FUNCTION OF JUDGES AT LEAST WITH RESPECT
TO ENFORCING THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS PRECISELY TO BE COUNTER MAJORITY ARIUN.
JUDGES BY THEIR VERY NATURE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THE POPULAR THING.
THEYRE SUPPOSED TO APPLY LAW TO FACTS AND REACH THE RESULT THAT THE LAW REQUIRES IN
THEIR VIEW. WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.
TO ANSWER† A.WOULD YOU HAVE STILL DONE THAT?
A.TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, ONE MY FIRST, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I ATTENDED A NATIONAL
FORUM FOR STATE APPELLATE COURT JUDGES, IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER I WENT ON THE COURT.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN 1993. AFTER I AUTHORED THE BAEHR VERSUS LEWIN OPINION.
I THINK IT WAS. AND I SAID, ITS NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT THAT
DECISION CAME OUT OF HAWAII, A STATE WHERE JUDGES ARE NOT ELECTED, AND DONT HAVE TO SUFFER
BECAUSE THE MAJORITY DOES NOT APPROVE OF DECISIONS THAT THEY RENDER.
SO I THINK ITS VERY LIKELY THAT IF THE HAWAII SUPREME COURT HAD BEEN ELECTED, AND IF IT
HAD, I CAN ASSURE YOU I WOULD NOT BE ON IT, BECAUSE I WOULDNT HAVE RUN FOR ELECTION.
ITS VERY LIKELY THAT THE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO DO WHAT IT DID.
>>DAN: EDITH FROM EWA SAYS, I AM AGAINST COUPLES OF THE SAME SEX ADOPTING CHILDREN.
ITS NOT NORMAL FOR MOTHERS TO SLEEP WITH MOTHERS AND FOR FATHERS TO SLEEP WITH FATHERS.
IT WOULD CAUSE A HARDSHIP ON THE CHILD. ARE THERE ANY STUDIES ON THIS?
A.SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER KEEP YOUR PEACE. A.THATS A BIG QUESTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE OPINION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN CULTURAL PRACTICERS.
PLEASE ASK THEM TO CALL IN WITH THEIR OPINIONS. WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
THATS NOT GOING TO WORK OUT VERY WELL. IF YOU WOULD, WELL TAKE THEM.
LORNA IN WAHIAWA. WORRY FOR HOW THINGS WOULD GO IF THESE RIGHTS
BECOME LEGAL. WOULD OTHERS WHO REFUSE TO MARRY THEM, RENT
TO THEM, SELL NOW YOURS FOR WEDDINGS, BECOME LAWMAKERS IF THEY BECOME LEGAL.
GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION. WHERE DOES IT STOP.
UNDERAGE MARRIAGES, POLYGAMY, INCEST,. WHAT WE NEED TO REALIZE IS THAT THERE IS IT
A HUGE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND SAME SEX RIGHTS.
BECAUSE WHATS HAPPENING ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS PEOPLE WHO USE THEIR ARTISTIC TALENT TO
MAKE FLOWER ARRANGEMENTS OR BAKE CAKES OR PHOTOGRAPHY OR WEDDING DRESSES, IF THEY BELIEVE
THAT MARRIAGE IS REALLY ONLY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND THEY HAVE
THAT RELIGIOUS PECK PERSPECTIVE ON MARRIAGE AND THEY DONT WANT TO LEND THEIR CREATIVE
TALENT TO A SAME SEX COUPLES CEREMONY, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED.
IT DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GETTING PAID FOR THEIR WORK.
BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR EXPRESSIVE TALENTS IN THE WAY THAT THEY WANT.
FIRST AMENDMENT.>>THATS THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION. IT DOESNT EXTEND TO THAT KIND OF DISCRIMINATION
AND IT NEVER HAS. SUPPOSE THE SAME FLOWER ARRANGER BELIEVED
THAT JEWS WERE DAMNED TO PERDITION BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS THEIR
SAVE NOR.>>I DONT BELIEVE THATS EVER HAPPENED OR MANIFEST
ITSELF. I LOVE THE EMOTIONALISM OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
>>LET ME FINISH THAT THOUGHT. I ASK BECAUSE IM JEWISH OBVIOUSLY AND GO TALK
TO MORRIS DEEZ ABOUT THE EXTENT OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE COUNTRY BEFORE YOU DISMISS IT SO BLITHELY.
MY POINT IS THIS. I THINK ITS INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS THAT NO ONE
IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO MAKE FLOWER
ARRANGEMENTS FOR JEWS IF THEYRE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING FLOWER ARRANGEMENTS.
HAS THAT EVER BEEN A PROBLEM? THE ISSUE IS IS ITS INTERESTING THAT THIS
WHOLE† A.OR BLACK PEOPLE.
>>THAT WHOLE THING OPERATES UNDER THE BANNER OF TOLERANCE.
LETS BE TOLERANT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND WHERE THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND LETS MAKE
A COMMUNITY WHERE WE CAN TOLERATE DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT THERE IS NOT MUCH TOLERANCE FOR THE NICE COUPLE WHO RUN THIS BED AND BREAKFAST. YOU
KNOW WHAT? I DONT AGREE WITH THEM PERHAPS.
YEAH, I MEAN, YOU CAN SAY I DONT AGREE WITH THEM, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO IMPOSE MY BELIEFS
WHICH THIS LESBIAN COUPLE IS DOING, AND SAYING, YOU HAVE TO SEE THINGS MY WAY.
RATHER THAN SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DONT WANT TO OFFEND YOU.
I DONT WANT TO BOTHER YOU. IM GOING TO GO ACROSS THE STREET TO ANOTHER
PLACE.>>DAN: WHEN ANY OF US ARE EVER DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST, FOR ANY REASON, WE PROTEST. DO WE NOT?
>>BUT THE ISSUE IS OKAY, YOURE FIGHTING FOR MARRIAGE.
WE NEED MARRIAGE. WE NEED MARRIAGE TO FEEL EQUAL.
WHEN YOU GET MARRIAGE, AND SOMEBODY ELSE DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU, THE NICE COUPLE WHO DOES THE
PHOTOGRAPHY THING OUT OF THEIR HOME, THAT FEELING, THAT ESSENCE OF EQUALITY THAT MARRIAGE
BRINGS, ISNT ENOUGH BECAUSE WERE GOING TO DEMAND THAT THESE PEOPLE VIOLATE THEIR OWN
CONSCIENCE AND THEIR OWN BELIEFS. A.WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT TOLERANCE IS A GOOD
THING AND THAT EVERYONE OUGHT TO BE TOOL RANT.>>EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT I KNOW THAT IS
GAY AND MYSELF INCLUDED WOULD NOT WANT TO USE A BUSINESS OR A RABBI OR REVEREND OR WHOMEVER
TO PERFORM A CEREMONY THAT WAS NOT ON BOARD.>>I WOULD SAY I WISH EVERY SAME SEX COUPLE
WERE LIKE YOU BECAUSE THATS REASONABLE.>>YOU ARE GOING TO RUN INTO DISCRIMINATION
THOUGH. MY POINT IS JUST LIKE JUSTICE SAID.
YOURE GOING TO RUN INTO IT WHEREVER YOU GO.>>IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS THATS GOING TO BE
REACHED IN THE COUNTRY AND WERE DOWN TO ONE MINUTE.
IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS† YOU GET 15 SECONDS OF IT.
IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS THATS GOING TO BE REACHED ON THIS ISSUE?
A.IN THE PASSAGE OF TIME. SOONER OR LATER, JUST AS SEGREGATION WAS ULTIMATELY
OUTLAWED, AND THAT BECAME SOCIALLY ACCEPTED, SOONER OR LATER, I THINK THAT THROUGH HAWAII
FAMILY ADVOCATES, IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN ELECTING PEOPLE TO THE LEGISLATURE T. WONT
BE HAPPENING.>>I BELIEVE OUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATES AS
WELL AS OUR GREAT PRESIDENT WHO SUPPORTS MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR SAME SEX COUPLES, I BELIEVE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE WILL FALL IN LINE AND THEY WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND STAND ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE JUST LIKE HAWAII HAS ALWAYS DONE.
>>THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT INEVITABLE THAT ROE VS. WADE AS YOU MENTIONED VERY WISELY
DIDNT SETTLE THE ABORTION QUESTION. IT INITIATED THE DEBATE.
>>DAN: THANKS FOR COMING. SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. WE COULD DID ANOTHER 3 HOURS ON THIS.
TODAY WAS THE LAST DAY OF THE 2013 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
SOME OF YOU ARE BREATHING EASILY NOW. OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CONSIDERED A SLEW
OF BILLS AND PASSED SOMETHING LESS THAN A SLEW OF THEM COVERING EVERYTHING FROM EARLY
EDUCATION TO LABOR AGREEMENTS. WELL REVIEW THE SESSION WITH NEW LEADERS IN
THE HOUSE AND SENATE FROM BOTH PARTIES AND MEMBER OF THE GOVERNORS LEGISLATIVE TEAM.
WHAT PASSED AND WHAT WENT BY THE WAYSIDE. WHY AND HOW MUCH WILL IT ALL COST?
THATS NEXT TIME ON INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII. IM DAN BOYLAN.
A HUI HO

10 Replies to “PBS Hawaii – Insights: Same-Sex Marriage”

  1. The so-called social scientist uses a lot of subjective indicators to prove his point and ignores all the recommendations from American Pediatric Associations, American Psychiatric Associations and host of others that was based on "social science".

  2. Nice try Focus on the Family guy, Nice try.
    I guess Anti-miscegenation laws were also equal, because those same laws applied to everyone!
    I doubt he's even fooled himself let alone anyone else.

  3. "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."-(-Romans 12:2) The Bible clearly tells us that we should not expect our lives to look like the lives of other people (unbelievers) in this world.

  4. As Christians, we are aliens and strangers here on earth (1 Peter 2:11), and this world is not our home. Just as Christ was rejected—and still is—by so many who want to live life their own, ungodly way, we will also find the same types of people despising us for our faith.

  5. Peter, I agree with you. Without God's Word as our guide, then all decisions that affect society become relative. C.S. Lewis once expressed this. In a world of relativism….someone is bound to stop on someone else's toes.

  6. If we open the definition of marriage, then where does it stop? Polygamists, incest, incestual polygamy. People can be good, law abiding citizens who want multiple partners and are attracted to their own family members. They'll claim that it's not a choice and they were born with these sick desires so they should be afforded the right to "marry."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *