The veto list lands

There was an interesting mixed reaction among leading supporters of HB 444 to news that Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the civil unions bill on her list of possible vetoes.

PFLAG-Oahu obviously didn’t believe the governor that she’s still making up her mind and issued a statement bashing Lingle as though the bill is already dead.

“Hawaii’s Governor has killed the spirit of Aloha and the reputation of Hawaii as a land of  freedom and justice in one death blow to this bill that has passed the 2010 Legislature,” PFLAG said.

“Lingle has said in no uncertain terms that an individual’s right to love and care for another person is of no interest to her or the Republican Party.  She has bowed to Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona and the International Transformation Network that calls for Hawaii to be the first Christian State in the nation.”

Citizens for Equal Rights took a more measured approach, noting with regret that HB 444 is among 39 bills Lingle listed for possible veto. But the group acknowledged that she’s still deliberating and urged her “to consider the significant positive economic impact HB444 could have on the economy at this critical juncture as the state and businesses struggle to rebuild revenue and create new jobs.”

The group then went on to articulate the economic benefits it sees from letting HB 444 become law based on a study by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA.

I certainly don’t know if Lingle’s mind is still open, but having come this far, it would seem to make the most sense for both sides to play it as though it is. There will be plenty of time for bashing later.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Volcanic Ash

Tags: ,

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

19 Comments on “The veto list lands”

  1. Alan R. Spector Says:

    HB444 remains alive. Throughout the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions, Gov Lingle has not issued an opinion on the bill. We have advocated for this bill from a variety of perspective including civil rights, legal, economic, constitutional, and religious. We have dispelled all the myths and false claims made by our opponents. I remain very hopeful by Gov Lingle’s words that she continues to go back and forth in her opinion regarding her pending action on the bill and that she needs more time. Clearly she is engaged in thoughtful consideration. The fact that a Republican Gov has yet to come out against this bill is promising. Even our opponent, G. Hashimito expresses concern.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104543.html

  2. zzzzzing Says:

    Carol’s always been a bit of a reactionary, imho. in case someone takes offense, the name’s jayen.

    Anyway, “it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings” or some-such nonsense. Or is it “obese lady” now in this P/C age… I forget.

  3. charles Says:

    It’s calorie-challenged, if I recall correctly.

    As far as HB444 goes, it’s understandable that it’s a tough decision for Lingle as it was for the legislature.

    That said, it’s not that difficult to understand the issue; thus, it’s not that difficult to make a decision based upon the facts.

    The issue has been around longer than Lingle has been in office and the bill before her has been around for two years. Not to mention, the bill passed the legislature over six weeks ago.

  4. jayz43 Says:

    I oppose hb444, that is just my personal belief, which is polarizing whichever side you take, so I usually choose not to comment in civil union discussions.

    But it’s that type of inflammatory, “over-the-top” attack by PFLAG that incenses the opposition, does NOTHING to advance its position and sometimes turns these discussions into full-fledged name-calling affairs.

    Last month on another Shapiro article on civil unions, a commenter wrote, “Will she listen to her better angels or the most narrow and bigoted members of society?” I took issue with that remark and retorted.

    Some of us need to learn to agree to disagree and be more diplomatic in the words they choose to advance their position.

  5. Bongo Says:

    I have no strong opinion either way on 444, but by forcing the issue now, without popular support, the proponents are polarizing and activating the community and will lose this issue for years.

    Lingle will veto (she owes it to Aiona and she reads her mail. 20K letters, 85% for veto) and Honolulu will have to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the prop 8 legal fight.

  6. WooWoo Says:

    I agree that it is likely that she will veto, but somebody please humor me and tell me this:

    If she signs the bill (not allows it to pass without signature, actually SIGNS the bill), does this help her in a 2012 Senate race?

    And a segue off of that: If Lingle signs the bill and says that it is a result of, in part, consulting with her spiritual advisors, what do the anti-religion activists say? They are quick to demonize religion when it goes against them, but as Ross accurately points out here 3 out of 4 Jewish denominations support gay rights. Last I checked, Lingle wasn’t orthodox. If her rabbi said, “Sign the bill, God loves us all,” what does Arakaki say? How can he criticize a decision supported by Lingle’s faith? (answer, he can’t without being accused of being anti-semitic)

  7. Shaloha Says:

    WooWoo, please…

    The so called “3 out of 4 Jewish denominations” argument rings hollow when one considers that these 3 “denominations” do not represent anything but the ideals of the Democrat party and are not following any, repeat, any of the commandments that dogmatically define someone as a Jew.

    Firs of all, there is no such concept as a Jewish “denomination”. This is a clear attempt to confuse the proliferation of the Protestant denominations (all of which belive in the 10 Commandments, for aexample, as a dogma) and extrapolate it on the Jewish faith.

    The 3 “denominations” do not keep Sabbath, do not keep Kosher dietary laws, they ordain “rabbis’ that are females, gays and atheist. Yes, atheists are offcially allowed to be Reform “rabbis”. These are just for starters.

    Jewish religion is dogmatic in nature – either you follow 613 (mitzvot) Commandments found in the Torah and thus consider yourself Jewish or refuse to do it and become what I call “an ethnic Jew”.

    An ethnic Jew eats bagels and uses funny words (“Oy Vey!”) but, by definition, he is not a Religious Jew.

    As I mentioned, with 90% of Jews voting for Obama the core believes of the Jewish community are 100% congruent with whatever Democrat party’s platform dujour defines as their current position.

    Since DNC is promoting anti religious bigotry, antisemitism and anti family agenda, Liberal Jews are compelled to follow it as well.

    Paradoxically, the Democrats are viciously anti Israel but the Jewish community is compelled to follow their Democrat believes even to the detriment of their own people.

    So, it is no wonder that the 3 “denominations” will support an anti family agenda – they are simply following the policy position of the Democrat party.

    No religious Jew may support “gay marriage” as an institution. Those “Jews” that support it are not reflecting the Jewish tradition and therefore should not be used as an argument in this debate.

    I oppose 444 on the basis of the preferential tax treatment given to married couples meant to ease the expenses of child rearing. Since gay coples may not procreate (yes, I know, there were about 1,000 adoptions by the gay couples!) this will amount to an undeserved subsidy.

    In addition, once the door opens to the deconstructing of marriage, the “equal protection” argument will be used to legalize marriages beetween siblings, parents and children, multiple partners, etc – after all, if the foundation of marriage is “love” (whatever that means) then all of the above must be considered as long as, say, three men and 5 women are in love.

    This is a slippery-slope and reductio ad absurdum arguments that ring very loud for me.

  8. Capitol -ist/WassupDoc Says:

    Who are these people? See zzzzzing June 21, 2010 at 10:27 pm above

    Carol’s always been a bit of a reactionary, imho. in case someone takes offense, the name’s jayen.

  9. Michael Says:

    lingle plans to Veto audits.

  10. WooWoo Says:

    @Shaloha-

    My point is not to get into a debate on what constitutes a real Jew, it’s to ask the political hypotheticals.

    If it was up to me, I’d veto 444 too. But I don’t get into it here because I ain’t gonna change anybody’s mind.

  11. Alan R. Spector Says:

    @Shaloha. You are correct one point. We Jews don’t use the term “denomination.” The correct term is “movement.” Judaism is far more than just 613 mitzvot. Your comments about the 3 non-orthodox movements are very misleading and inaccurate…..certainly not in the spirit of Aloha or Shalom.

  12. zzzzzing Says:

    @Capitol -ist/WassupDoc:

    carol is the person responsible for pflag’s existence.

  13. Capitol -ist/WassupDoc Says:

    zzzzzing: I think that you are referring to CarolYN Golojuch whose son Michael is a somewhat regular visitor to this blog. And who is “jayen”?

    If heterosexual couples can adopt a child and get the full tax benefits as birth children, then why shouldn’t homosexual couples do so as well? With nearly 40% of children born to single moms these days, why shouldn’t homosexual couples get the same tax benefits.

    I have two brothers – one did not come out until about 15 years ago after going through five marriages and fathering nine kids – including one while in high school – trying to prove that he was a manly man.

    He has been in a relationship with the same man since he came out.

    By Shaloha’s standards, my “before” brother was moral and upright whereas my “after” brother is a disgusting piece of snit who should have continued living the way he did for the first 50 years of his life.

  14. zzzzzing Says:

    @ Capitol -ist/WassupDoc:
    yep, and i’m gonna leave the second one up to you to figure out.

  15. Capitol -ist/WassupDoc Says:

    zzzzzing: Sorry, I have no idea who “jayen” is. I don’t even think I’ve ever heard any name that comes close to it. Jane maybe or Jurgen maybe, but not Jayen.

    Anyone else know who this individual is?

  16. zzzzzing Says:

    @Capitol -ist/WassupDoc: ok a little background. in yesterday’s blog post, Dave admonished ‘bongo’ for bullying & mentioned something about hiding behind an anonymous s/n to do it, when the other person was using their real name. in case someone got twitchy because of what i said about carolYN, i said ‘name here is jayen.’ do they not say ‘name here is…’ in your circle of acquaintances? they do in mine 🙂

  17. Shaloha Says:

    I do not beleive a single word of what Capitol -ist posted above…

    I never called anyone a “snit” – you did.

    Assuming that your story is correct: I never opined whether anyone is “upright” or “moral” because they were Gay or not. I could go on, but what you do is called a “Straw Man” argument.

    I do belive that Judeo-Christians religions are dogmatic in nature – they have published codes of ethics for everyone to see (such as Ten Comandments, for example). However, the Democrats do not have any moral or ethical code available to check if they are behaving according to any norms.

    Therefore, any attempt by Democrats to cast themselves as “moral” are impossible to check against any discernable criteria available to anyone. Considering that the prevailing Philosophy of the DNC is Moral Relativism, I incline to think that any claims to “moral” behaviour by the Democrats are false: All Democrats are either amoral or immoral.

    We cannot judge your brother’s behavior(I assume he is a Democrat like you)as immoral since as a Democrat he has no claim to any moral code.

    He is a sinner from the Judeo Christian perspective but so are all of us.

    None of it has anything to do with attacks on the traditional marriage by the DNC.

    What is truly immoral is to be a Democrat not a confused Gay person, but I digress.

  18. zzzzzz Says:

    @shaloha 11:07– “preferential tax treatment given to married couples???”

    Since I’ve been married, when I do our taxes I usually also, for the heck of it, calculate what we’d pay if we weren’t married. Those calculations have always showed that we paid thousands more in taxes every year because we’re married.

    If it’s the preferential tax treatment that’s the concern, you should prefer same-sex marriage over civil unions.

  19. Alan R. Spector Says:

    @zzzzzzz the so called “marriage penalty” is often a myth. It really depends on each couple’s individual circumstances. When one spouse earns significantly more than the other, it is usually advantageous to have the ability to file jointly as there is a significant savings. In other situations, a marred couple may actually pay more. I too do a “dummie” tax filing to see what our taxes would be if the federal and state gov’t recognized my marriage to my husband. There have been quite a few years in which being forced to file as single cost us at least $2,000 more in taxes than of we could file jointly. Others years it was a break even.


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: