Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahina

(19,911 posts)
2. As usual, Ian Lind (ilind.net) gets to the point best.
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 12:07 AM
Nov 2013
http://ilind.com
Constitutional authority for same-sex marriage bill
November 2nd, 2013 · Court, Legislature, Politics

The stock testimony on SB1 from religious opponents of the bill to legalize marriages between people of the same sex still contends that the 1998 amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution somehow requires another constitutional amendment to undo. Although these thousands of people have obviously been presented this as true, it is simply wrong, as even a cursory reading of the amendment makes clear.

People seem to have the idea that the constitution was changed to prohibit anything other than traditional, man & woman marriages.

But here’s what it actually says:

“The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

The legislature has the power to choose whether or not to do so.

If SB1 is passed, the legislature will have exercised its discretion not to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The legal opinion on this point by Attorney General David Louie, dated October 14, 2013, is both detailed and easy to follow. You can find it posted online with other recent opinions.

Listening to testimony in opposition to the bill, you get the impression the legislature is preparing to prohibit marriages between opposite-sex couples. It’s as if they fear sheriff’s deputies will be waiting outside their churches to round up people and herd them into sex-segregated buses for transportation to U.N. sponsored reeducation camps.

Testimony repeatedly refers to freedoms being taken away by the bill, although to tell the truth I’m not at all clear which freedoms they’re talking about. The freedom to marry who they choose? Obviously not. The freedom to believe that some marriages are more holy than others? No, they can still believe what they want. The freedom to be a bigot? To be ignorant?

more Ian at the link.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Hawaii»Hawaii anti- same sex mar...»Reply #2