HI: Judge Rules Against Two Women Wanting to Get Married

[Frodo]

Setback for gay marriage in Hawaii

By ASSOCIATED PRESS | 8/8/12 10:36 PM EDT

HONOLULU – A federal judge ruled Wednesday against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of entering into a civil union, handing a victory to opponents of gay marriage in a state that’s been at the forefront of the issue.

U.S. District Judge Alan C. Kay’s ruling sides with Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy and Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian group that was allowed to intervene in the case. Hawaiian law allows for civil unions, but not for gay marriages.

“Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” and not through the courts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79506.html#ixzz231K6M2JY

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

It's truly a wonder how gay marriage isn't even legal in Hawaii, yet.

[greenforest32]

It's truly a wonder how gay marriage isn't even legal in Hawaii, yet.

Yeah I don't know which is worse: Hawaii (state legislature is ~90% D) or Rhode Island (state legislature is ~81% D). Those two are definitely going to be next along with California, Illinois, and Delaware.

[RI]

Democrats in Hawaii and Rhode Island are both more socially conservative than your average Democrat.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

“Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” and not through the courts.

This sort of unthinking pseudo-populism isn't actually a legal argument of any kind, but whatever. Who appointed this Kay character?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

“Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” and not through the courts.

This sort of unthinking pseudo-populism isn't actually a legal argument of any kind, but whatever. Who appointed this Kay character?

That's just the conclusion, not the argument itself.

[Free Palestine]

Democrats in Hawaii and Rhode Island are both more socially conservative than your average Democrat.

Yeah, being a Democrat doesn't automatically make you a champion of equality.  Kinda shows how dumb the two-party system is -- about 60% of Democrats would be members of a Christian Democratic party if they were in Europe.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yes, because sweeping social change should never be accomplished through the courts. Remember how the state legislatures ended segregation?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Setback for gay marriage in Hawaii

By ASSOCIATED PRESS | 8/8/12 10:36 PM EDT

HONOLULU – A federal judge ruled Wednesday against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of entering into a civil union, handing a victory to opponents of gay marriage in a state that’s been at the forefront of the issue.

U.S. District Judge Alan C. Kay’s ruling sides with Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy and Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian group that was allowed to intervene in the case. Hawaiian law allows for civil unions, but not for gay marriages.

“Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” and not through the courts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79506.html#ixzz231K6M2JY

Smart move

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

“Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” and not through the courts.

This sort of unthinking pseudo-populism isn't actually a legal argument of any kind, but whatever. Who appointed this Kay character?

That's just the conclusion, not the argument itself.

I'm aware of that, but the quality of the writing and points made in the conclusion does not inspire confidence in the argument. I seem to remember the dissent in the Ninth Circuit a while back being far better than this boilerplate.

[Supersonic]

There are already 'all but marriage' Civil Unions in Hawaii.

So long as the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy are also afforded to same sex couples then what's the problem?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, because sweeping social change should never be accomplished through the courts. Remember how the state legislatures ended segregation?

To a large extent, that replaced de jure segregation with de facto segregation as white flight academies were set up.  It also eroded support for public schools in general.  However, with both desegregation and ending restrictions on interracial marriage, the courts intervened to make uniform a rule that a majority of states had already adopted.

It is not good for a republic to be governed by the judicial branch instead of the legislative.  If the judicial branch intervenes too often to thwart the wishes of the people, the people will eventually rise up and unseat the dictators who think they know better than the people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Holmes]

There are already 'all but marriage' Civil Unions in Hawaii.

So long as the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy are also afforded to same sex couples then what's the problem?

Ouch, a heterosexual telling gay men and women to shut up and accept the status quo. You're a darling.

[krazen1211]

What a smart judge this guy is. Allegedly he is a magistrate judge appointed by fellow district judges, per a google search.

Certainly, nothing authorizes him to validate this rogue marriage.

[Holmes]

Oh snap, this marriage is going rogue!

[John Dibble]

There are already 'all but marriage' Civil Unions in Hawaii.

So long as the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy are also afforded to same sex couples then what's the problem?

They aren't. There are numerous federal benefits they are denied. It's also just plain insulting - 'seperate but equal' is a doctrine that is a proven failure.

[Supersonic]

There are already 'all but marriage' Civil Unions in Hawaii.

So long as the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy are also afforded to same sex couples then what's the problem?

Ouch, a heterosexual telling gay men and women to shut up and accept the status quo. You're a darling.

I'm not heterosexual, lol.

What I meant was, the judge's ruling wasn't a major setback as same sex couples at the very least, already enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals in Hawaii. It would be different if this ruling was in, say, Pennsylvania where there is no legal recognition of gay couples, even hospital visitation rights.

Don't get me wrong, I support same sex marriage, but when something like Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships are in place, the use of the term 'marriage' isn't a priority.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What a smart judge this guy is. Allegedly he is a magistrate judge appointed by fellow district judges, per a google search.

Certainly, nothing authorizes him to validate this rogue marriage.

He may very well be a smart judge, but there's nothing in the article at the start of this thread to indicate that.

[afleitch]

There are already 'all but marriage' Civil Unions in Hawaii.

So long as the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy are also afforded to same sex couples then what's the problem?

Ouch, a heterosexual telling gay men and women to shut up and accept the status quo. You're a darling.

I'm not heterosexual, lol.

What I meant was, the judge's ruling wasn't a major setback as same sex couples at the very least, already enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals in Hawaii. It would be different if this ruling was in, say, Pennsylvania where there is no legal recognition of gay couples, even hospital visitation rights.

Don't get me wrong, I support same sex marriage, but when something like Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships are in place, the use of the term 'marriage' isn't a priority.

Marriage is a priority as regardles of what states recognise whether it's civil unions or marriage we still have DOMA in the way. As someone who can't move to the USA with his American fiance the need for equality in law when it comes to marriage is both very important and very real.

[Supersonic]

There are already 'all but marriage' Civil Unions in Hawaii.

So long as the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy are also afforded to same sex couples then what's the problem?

Ouch, a heterosexual telling gay men and women to shut up and accept the status quo. You're a darling.

I'm not heterosexual, lol.

What I meant was, the judge's ruling wasn't a major setback as same sex couples at the very least, already enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals in Hawaii. It would be different if this ruling was in, say, Pennsylvania where there is no legal recognition of gay couples, even hospital visitation rights.

Don't get me wrong, I support same sex marriage, but when something like Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships are in place, the use of the term 'marriage' isn't a priority.

Marriage is a priority as regardles of what states recognise whether it's civil unions or marriage we still have DOMA in the way. As someone who can't move to the USA with his American fiance the need for equality in law when it comes to marriage is both very important and very real.

I was solely referring to Hawaii here, but yes, DOMA needs to be, at the very least, partially repealed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why are so many American judges effectively and essentially trolls?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why are so many American judges effectively and essentially trolls?

Just for starters, in some states we actually elect them, but I don't believe Hawaii is one of those states.

[opebo]

Why are so many American judges effectively and essentially trolls?

Because that is their job, Al.

[morgieb]

If this is coming out of Hawaii......unfortunately gay marriage has still got a long way to go.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why was Hawaii Family Forum allowed to stick its nose into this case?