Victory for Marriage Supporters in Hawaii!


Thank you, all of you, for taking action! We've scored another victory for marriage:

"The [Hawaii] state House Judiciary Committee has decided not to schedule a hearing for a bill that would legalize gay marriage, which means the issue is likely tabled for this legislative session.

State Rep. Karl Rhoads, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that after polling his colleagues he determined there was not the political will for a gay-marriage bill this session." (Star Advertiser)

Please take a moment and contact your representatives to thank them for standing strong for marriage!


  1. Ash
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Yay! 🙂

  2. CRSmith
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    I am so glad to hear some good news. It seems like everywhere you turn its gay this, or gay that. Finally decent people are standing up for what is right. I don't think the gays will be getting married anywhere else soon! Thank you!

  3. Freeza
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    What a good new for the children ! I'm french, and here in France, we fight against gay marriage, but our government doesn't want to consider our voice... But we fight, and we will again and again...

  4. M. jones
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Thank you NOM and God bless. Looks like a win (with the vote delay) for real marriage coming shortly in RI too.

  5. Posted February 12, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    People in Hawaii, as in many States, are prone to vote Democrat in urban areas, and Republican in the provinces. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, even same-sex civil unions, the majority breaks ranks and voices opposition. It is only through the Legislature that same-sex civil unions got passed. Believe it or not, one Republican in the House voted for same-sex civil unions (a precursor to same-sex marriage), now retired (fearful?). Do you know what this Republican called the same-sex civil union bill she voted for (Kaimuki, etc. districts)? ? She reported it as, get this: CIVIL UNIONS FOR ADULTS.

    If the arguments against SSm are circulated in Hawaii's urban communities, the people will vote down those in the Legislature who advocate it. The marriage amendment to the Hawaii Constitution spells out marriage is to be between a man and a woman, but something left for the Legislature to decide. As usual, rules, laws, and code are badly written or inconsistent with other rules, laws or code in Hawaii, leaving lots of loop holes.

    If enough people voted in Hawaii, the end result would be Republican dominance. It's as simple as that. People there are very family-oriented, and right now Democrat politicians have shown they cannot get more Federal "pork" give-aways, and one Senator just died. So, this is a good time to turn the tide away from Democrats who are wanting to pay-back SSmer lobbyists by passing same-sex marriage, just a year after passing same-sex civil unions; and in spite of having a Reciprocal Beneficiaries Relationship law already in place.

    Now is the time for a big effort in Hawaii. Their Governor is the least likable compared to the other 49 States. But the rest of the nation cares only that their hotel beds are well made whenever they decide to visit the tropical land of "Paradise". Locals have the highest per capita credit card debt in the nation. That's what they get for following Democrat "solutions". Sorry, Hawaii: No more "pork" available, even though Mr. Always Right says he was born in Hawaii.

  6. Quinn
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    hopefully we can defeat the radical gay agenda anywhere it's possible.

  7. CRSmith
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Freza, I don't understand. I remember reading here that hundreds of thousands of DECENT people were protesting the idea of gay marriage of France. I thought that it wasn't going anywhere. Are you saying that is not the case? I can't believe it. I was so sure that the gays wouldn't be catered to in France like they seem to be everywhere here in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Can you tell us more?

  8. Bobby
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    CRSmith - There was a subsequent rally in France where hundreds of thousand of DECENT people expressed support for marriage equality. Those who oppose equality do not have a monopoly on decency. Here is a link with an update on legislation in France.
    Treating people equally and with respect is not catering to people, at least not in Western civilization.

  9. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Great news...thanks NOM!

  10. leviticus
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    We are off to a great start this year with all the marriage Victories thanks NOM!

  11. Good News
    Posted February 13, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    French update: Bad News

    Homosexual marriage (or marriage for all) passed the vote in the French Parliament yesterday. It will go to the Senate next where it will no doubt pass. Legalizing adoptions for homosexual couple was also passed.
    As in the States the majorities opinion does not count in France. Its called oppression. And this oppression in multinational and Western. Individual countries don't have that much to say about the matter.

    The next big protest march in France is March 24th when the reopening of markets for the selling and buying human beings comes up for a Parliament vote. That subject was also supposed to be voted on yesterday, but the last protest march was able to hold it off a bit. But since this whole thing is about money, money, money, about saving our weakening economy, of course that will pass too, since that is the end game – to be able to make money out of all of this.
    Marriage is the jackpot word for them, the Wall Street, The City of London and the medical and economic world. Because it is culturally and historically accepted that the best place to conceive and raise children is within a marriage. So where else would be the best place to sell children but in a marriage. And what better consumer bass then people who cannot conceive children on their own.

    But don't worry... don't worry to much anyway. For as the Frenchman (woman) Freeza says, “But we fight, and we will again and again...”
    Yes. Again and again. And such an absurdity to human dignity as calling man-man equal to man-woman (giving it the same word to name it – marriage) will not stand in history.
    So keep fighting, no matter what the “government” says, for we are confident in the Truth and in the Good.

  12. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    Bobby, please explain how the imposition of SSM is a show of respect for people.

    What is being respected with such a thing? Not equality for there are millions of people in France who are ineligible and yet their living arrangements and types of relationships are similarly situated as those for whom the gay identity group has demand special treatment.

    No, marriage equality means integration of the sexes. It means the rights of adults are balanced with the birthright of the child. It means moral respect for the dignity of the human person.

    It does not mean pushing a counterfeit on all of society. It does not mean imposition of a specious substitution for marriage. Oh, but that is what you really mean, by "marriage equality", isn't it? Your gay emphasis does not justify any of it, anyway, so why that emphasis in your rhetoric and argumentation, Bobby?

  13. Eric Struaine
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    I find it incredibly uplifting that "victory" for NOM now means inaction.

    I think it shows the great progress made over the past decade.

  14. CRSmith
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I don't understand. The majority of DECENT folks don't like gay marriage. So how can this keep happening?

  15. Will Fisher
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    CRSmith, actually, a majority of DECENT people in the US now support legalizing SSM. Furthermore, it ceases to be controversial soon after legalization in places where it has occurred.

  16. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    No, Will Fisher, it obviously remains controversial even after imposition.

    The basic problem is that your side does not provide justification for a special status based on the gay type of relationship. There are many types of relationships that are similarly situated in the non-marriage category.

    For those, sexual attraction is no trump card. Nor is group identity. Yet you demand special status (marital status is a special status) based on those two things as if they were your trump cards.

    It is an unstable and unsustainable basis for special status in law, policy, and culture.

    Meanwhile, marriage is two-sexed for reasons that are extrinsic to same-sex sexual attraction and foreign to gay identity politics. Society may justly discriminate between the union of husband and wife and all other types of relationships. But the gay emphasis of your SSM campaign provides no such legitimate basis for discrimination between SSM and the rest of nonmarriage.

    None. So it is unjust. And unjust impositions are subject to reversal because such lacks the moral authority to command allegiance of decent people.

    Force of law does not justify itself. And force of law consequent to the imposition of SSM will not be justified -- because prior to the imposition it was not justified. Your own rhetoric and argumentation would set Government and the Law against the truth and that is going to make for a very controversial, to say the least, aftermath of SSM imposition.

  17. Will Fisher
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, marriage isn't a 'special status'. You don't need to justify your choice. Rather, the state needs to justify, in court, it's prohibition. If you you think legalizing SSM causes an injustice, file a lawsuit. If you are aggrieved by the actions of the government or person, you have recourse through the legal system. Finally, if discrimination against other relationships is what you're really worried about, then the citizens of who are in said type of relationship may make their case in the courts as well.

  18. Ash
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    "Rather, the state needs to justify, in court, it's prohibition."

    Not really. Under rational basis review, the burden is on those challenging the legislative classification to negate every conceivable basis for the law. The state doesn't have to do much. In fact, a justification for the classification that's not even in the legislative record can be accepted. So long as a suspect classification is not drawn (such as one based on race), or a fundamental right is not at stake, then the challenged law is reviewed under the highly deferential rational basis standard.

  19. Will Fisher
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 5:13 am | Permalink

    Prop 8 and DOMA have failed even rational basis review, at least in lower courts. We'll see if that holds in SCOTUS soon enough.

  20. Posted February 16, 2013 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    No, Will Fisher. Some JUDGES have failed in adhering to rational basis review; and yes, that has been in lower courts per DOMA. Prop 8 and DOMA have not failed the test. If Oh-bama's troupe is defending (he's non-mathematical and inept), of course DOMA is going to lose in court. Justice Kennedy already said Lawrence v. Texas does not lead to same-sex marriage.

    "We'll see"? You mean, you have doubts?

  21. Mikhail
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    Lawrence v. Texas was more about unenforceable laws which prohibit immoral, yet harmless, conduct. DOMA is enforceable and it's repeal would NOT be harmless as we have seen from Canada, Scandinavia and the 9 states in the US that have done it

  22. Ash
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    DOMA could survive rational basis scrutiny easily, even if the argument is that the federal government wants to preserve public funds.

  23. Bobby
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Mikhail. I am fortunate enough to live in one of those 9 states you refer to. Marriage equality has been law for over a tear and a half here in New York. No harm has been caused.

  24. Posted February 16, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Mikhail says: "Lawrence v. Texas was more about unenforceable laws which prohibit immoral, yet harmless, conduct."

    Is the dissemination of AIDS through sodom-y harmless conduct, on average? It might not be called "immoral". But, is it harmless? If it produces harm, empirically, then it is enforceable.

    Sooner or later society will see the limits of freedom. . .

  25. Chairm
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 3:00 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher you are wrong on every point, but it reveals that you are convinced that SSM is very different from marital status.

    Marital status is a special status. In our laws and in our culture were have types of relationships that are not tolerated -- these are outlawed. Then we have the types that are tolerated but accorded no special treatment. And then there are the types of relationships that are more than tolerated because society accords protections. And, of all the types of relationships, we have marital status which is a preferential status -- more than protective, more than merely tolerative.

    The leading voices for the SSM campaign are conflicted: on one hand they demand marital status because they argue in courtrooms that it is a preferential status; and on the other hand they demur that they just want tolerance with some protections due the type of relationship they have in mind -- gaycentric.

    No matter. In society and in our legal system, marital status is a special -- or preferential -- status. But it is so for reasons that are foreign to the one-sexed scenario -- gay or otherwise. That probably is why the SSM campaign argues to diminish the core meaning of marriage -- to make it less and less and less meaningful; and then go on and on about the gay emphasis that does not actually distinguish SSM from the rest of the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category.

    It is duplicitous.

    2. "You don't need to justify your choice."

    Well, no kidding. But your choice is not the issue here. The choice to form a nonmarital type of relationship -- one-sexed or otherwise -- is a liberty exercised and not a right denied. You are not denied the special status of marriage for you just now claimed no special status. The type of relationship you have in mind is situated in the non-marriage category and you appear to be quite glad of it.

    3. " Rather, the state needs to justify, in court, it's prohibition."

    Well, the state is obligated to promote the core meaning of marriage rather than to obscure it as SSMers demand. So, no, the onus is on you why marriage must be demoted from its preferential status to some lower level based on your gay emphasis. Otherwise, you are demanding special treatment based on your race-like identity (at least the SSM campaign insists that gay is a race-like identity) and that would be unjust discrimination.

    4. "If you you think legalizing SSM causes an injustice, file a lawsuit."

    Well, right here I challenge you to justify special status for the type of relationship you have in mind. Your response, thusfar, is to deny that marital status is a special status. Okay, what is this status you seek for SSM if not a merely protective status or a tolerative status? How does it merit that much -- and why must marriage be demoted to that? Further, why do you emphasize gay identity at the cost of the rest of the types of non-marriage which are in need of toleration and protection, according to those who live those types of relationships?

    Before you invite legal challenges, try to make a decent argument in an informal forum such as the comment sections here that you have chosen to frequent with bald-faced assertions you need to back-up.

    5. "Finally, if discrimination against other relationships is what you're really worried about, then the citizens of who are in said type of relationship may make their case in the courts as well."

    Can you, here, distinguish the type of relationship you have in mind from the rest of the nomarital types of relationship? If you cannot, and I doubt that you can do so justly, then, you are merely playing a game of politics through the court system.

    That is actually what the SSM campaign has done, repeatedly, in asking courts to abuse judicial review. Those compliant courts have demonstrated, in their written legal opinions, that the SSM argumentation and rhetoric destroys the boundaries between marriage and non-marriage and whatever lines between eligibility and ineligibility that remain on the books are left as arbitrary impositions in the wake of the imposition of SSM.

    I challenge you to clearly state the essential(s) of the type of relationship you have in mind that would distinguish it from the rest of one-sexed types of relationships in the non-marriage category.

  26. Chairm
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 3:01 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher, thank you for stating that you envision for SSM a status very different from marital status.

    Then why do you attack marital status as unjust?

  27. Posted February 18, 2013 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    This is a belated Yay!, but here it is! Well done, NOM and all their supporters!

  28. Chairm
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    I expect that Will Fisher will choose not to respond substantively and the he will continue to attack the marriage idea in yet more comments under other blogposts. His comments will display unreasoning obstinancey in the cause of favoritism for the gay identity group. On his own terms, his advocacy is for the sake of a racist-like imposition on all of society. Here he will exit without meeting the challenge and so leave the field to the sound of chirping crickets.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.