In the thread to another post, a reader asks a fair question, though inappropriately placed and expressed, “why isn’t GayPatriot discussing Republican Governor Lingle’s decision to veto the Civil Union bill in Hawaii, therefore effectively preventing civil unions?“* First, if this fellow read the blog, he’d know why I’ve been blogging slower than usual. I’m just now returning from a family vacation, including a detour to Disneyland, with two nieces and a nephew on their way back to Ohio after spending some time with Goofy as well as meeting the Disney characters.
Now, while I have read about Governor Lingle’s veto of the bill in Hawai’i, I haven’t had time to review the reasons she gave (nor consider the actual text of the legislation itself). On the surface, this looks bad. From what (little) I know about the legislation, I would rather she had signed the bill.
That said, let me offer three reasons why she may have vetoed it–and they relate to the paucity of Republicans backing repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Indeed, these reasons first occurred to me in the wake of the House vote for repeal:
1. Gay organizations tend to ignore Republicans when lobbying legislators and other elected officials. And in those cases, when they do approach them, the “speak the wrong language,” talking in terms more appropriate for a college campus and pushing notions (i.e., abstraction of state-regulated equality) at odds with Republican ideas.
2. There is no gay Republican or conservative organization currently lobbying on these issues, with Log Cabin in a state of transition and GOProud just getting off the ground.
3. Related to 1. above. Given the liberal bias of gay organizations, with many all but serving as front groups for the Democratic Party (and its state and local affiliates), many Republican elected officials believe they have little to gain by votes on issues of concern to the gay community. They also see votes against such issues as “freebies,” chances to score points with social conservatives (more inclined to support Republicans) without risking losing support among independents.
Obviously, each of these points, particularly the last needs fleshing out. But, they do get at the problem and point to areas where gay Republicans and conservatives need to direct their efforts.
*This reader doesn’t quite express how this bill prevents civil unions. Guess he figures if the government doesn’t recognize his union, he’s not free to enter into it on his own and secure recognition of his relationship among his circle of friends and acquaintances and within private organizations and enterprises.
“This reader doesn’t quite express how this bill prevents civil unions. Guess he figures if the government doesn’t recognize his union, he’s not free to enter into it on his own and secure recognition of his relationship among his circle of friends and acquaintances and within private organizations and enterprises.”
Or the government could just allow gay people to marry, and gay people wouldn’t have to endure the extra burdens of “securing recognition” with the above mentioned. You know, like straight people.
Jeremy, if you understood the meaning of the words you quoted, you would understand that we don’t need the government’s permission to be allowed to marry. We can do that on without its blessing even though in each one of the fifty sovereign states.
Dan,
I’m guessing I was the reader you were referencing. I hope you had a good vacation around the country and to Disneyland.
You wrote a nicely-worded post. As for government recognition of gay unions, you have a point. I am free to enter into relationships of my own choosing, without government recognition. So, then why should governments formally grant extra rights & privileges to heterosexual couples, in the form of a marriage? If the argument is for procreation and building families, why would people need to have it condoned by the government? People can procreate without being “married.” Wouldn’t be a better idea for the government to get out of the “marriage business” altogether?
What is the difference between an unmarried (heterosexual) couple and a married (heterosexual) couple? An unmarried heterosexual couple has the freedom to certainly live together, they can have children if they wish without being legally “married”, and they can enact all forms of legal arrangements with respect to their heterosexual partner (the same that a gay couple would do, in the absence of a government-recognized civil union).
So, then why is there government recognition of ANY kind of union?
Under the law, if you do not have a marriage license, you are not married. You are legal strangers. W/o that license, you must create special contracts and legal arrangements (a costly process) to get some of the benefits of that legal institution. And you still won’t get all of those benefits.
The license matters. It makes you truly married, regardless of any private entity’s recognition of the validity of your relationship.
No, Jeremy, you are married, it’s just that that marriage lacks state recognition. You may be legal strangers, but in your eyes, those of your friends and associates as well as the Creator, you are married.
I’m not saying the license doesn’t matter, but it’s important that we don’t engage in rhetorical overkill as do nearly all advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriage.
James, thanks for the kind words, especially about the quality of this post written in haste.
As to the other questions, they do merit discussion, but do not address the issue I consider in the post to which you attach them. You do seem to be offering a lot of intelligent, but inapposite questions today. 🙂
Listen, I get what you are saying. Recently two coworkers of mine, who are lesbians, married. Half of my work, including my bosses, attended the ceremony. In our eyes, they are wives. And I certainly would not tell them they are not. But when I say “They are married”, I can’t shake the feeling that that phrase is hollow and meaningless. They are not recognized as married by our government. That recognition matters on more than a pure “legalities” level, because, for better or worse, it is how our society has chosen to give relationships validity and status. And that is why our enemies fight so hard to deny us the state recognition. We may agree that maybe we should not rely on the state to confer privileged status on anyone’s relationship, but that is even less likely to happen than nation-wide gay marriage.
I believe James has a valid point. He’s speaking of equal protection under the law. He’s rightfully asking as many of us do, “why should any government entity provide ir withhold rights and privileges to one class without extending or withholding it to any other class without due process?”
With respect, Daniel, I believe you may be stretching a point in your reply to Jeremy.
Insofar as your statement “you are married . . . .” I wonder if you really believe that statement. Many of us do want to be treated as equals by our government, state, federal, etc.. Many of us no longer find mere cohabitation as a suitable lifestyle. We look with envy and sadness at the special privileges other citizens enjoy, yet which are denied us.
Now, having disagreed with you on this point, I do very much agree with the third point of your post. We as gay Americans do need to reach out to Republican candidates. We need to let both parties know that our votes and money can’t be taken for granted. We need to let both parties know that our political opinions are just as diverse as those of other Americans.
For me, the solution is taking back the Democratic party from the left-wing loonies. The loonies are in control of the party machinery, but grassroots Democrats are pretty normal. The Republican party will continue to kowtow the religious right so that even those who are sympathetic to gay rights won’t be able to say it or have any influence.
So, who’s a grassroots, fiscally conservative, socially progressive Democrat with the skills, intelligence, and cojones to lead? Who? Hmmm. Let me think. . . .Hillary!!
we all know that most private organizations follow state’s guidelines on marriage recognition. I remember a case in new jersey where also civil unions were not recognized by a firm because its benefit plan only recognized married or not married persons. will you endorse the present republican candidate for governor? he was among the supporters of the veto and has pledged to veto any other civil unions bill.can conservative gay(that support the equal protection clause but want that the political branch apply it) support a candidate that will eliminate every possibility of equal rights through the political process for four years?
i am italian and i am sorry for possible errors or improprieties
Because of stupid Protestants in the 19th century wanting government to regulate religious ceremony.
Marriage is a religious and cultural function, and the government should not be involved in “recognizing” it.
why get married? why seek out the civil union?
Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/26/why-do-men-women-get-married-forbes-woman-well-being-love-money.html
and then another perspective from
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361650/jewish/Why-Get-Married.htm
Some folk would be happy to settle with Civil Unions, some would like Marriage (as in the benefits and perks offered by society and acknowledged by the government-state & federal) and others have quiet unions off to the side without alot of hoopla.
what is interesting is that HI Gov Lingles did take time out to do photos with local HI PFLAG folk. . .
Man, fair points all. Don’t think I’m stretching a point though. Do want people to understand the difference between “freedom to” and “state recognition of.”
That said, I do favor state recognition of same-sex monogamous relationships, but am not beholden to the word, “marriage.” And let me make clear, as per the post, from what I know, I fault Gov. Lingle for her veto.
Thanks Dan for your clarification. I agree.
Dodoguru – – “stupid protestants”? Before the Reformation the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church required all marriages to be performed in state churches. Israel still doesn’t allow civil unions, nor do they permit Reformed or Conservative marriages within the state.
While I’m offended by your comment re protestants, I’d prefer the option of civil unions or for church marriages, both equal before the law.
Man, your comment serves as a reminder to blog on why I believe this is a verbal distinction with a difference–and why it matters.
So, then why should governments formally grant extra rights & privileges to heterosexual couples, in the form of a marriage? If the argument is for procreation and building families, why would people need to have it condoned by the government?
They don’t.
That being said, given that having married parents decreases by six times the likelihood that a child will end up in poverty, it rather behooves the government, which would then have to pay for everything that that poverty-stricken child needs, to encourage people to marry, would it not?
We look with envy and sadness at the special privileges other citizens enjoy, yet which are denied us.
Do you get jealous of people with disabled placards on their car? Are you upset that senior citizens pay reduced rates on pet licenses? If you’re a property owner, are you upset that renters don’t have to pay property taxes? Does it bother you that people who make less than you do pay proportionately less into Social Security but get proportionately greater benefits?
If you had a dollar for every time somebody whined that you didn’t blog on a subject, would you still be blogging?
I ask, in the ’90’s we as a community wanted to start our own traditions the word Holy or Sacred Union was bantered about because we didn’t want to mimic heterosexuals!
Today that’s different, our community wants to mimic something we’re not!
I’m gay, not straight!
to north dallas: but older heterosexual couples (in fact every heterosexual couple where the woman has more than 58 year) can marry and have state benefits without any possibility of having children.
From the little I heard on it she considered it worded poorly, and wished for an amendment to the state’s constitution instead of the law she was given. It also put’s the choice in the hands of the voters and not the pols.
That can be good or bad, no matter what your feelings are
‘Scuse me for butting in, but I just have to say something about this:
“For me, the solution is taking back the Democratic party from the left-wing loonies. The loonies are in control of the party machinery, but grassroots Democrats are pretty normal. . .”
WHO are the left wing loonies, specifically? Are they anywhere NEAR as looney and cartoony as say Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin or John Boner? Because for me, the Tea Party represents extreme loony fringe, and it has taken over the Right. Who even comes close on the left? Serious question, not being snarky.
to north dallas: but older heterosexual couples (in fact every heterosexual couple where the woman has more than 58 year) can marry and have state benefits without any possibility of having children.
And there are children under the age of 16 who have fully developed reasoning powers and are capable of making the decision to consent to sex and marry.
Therefore, by your “logic”, because of the existence of infrequent exceptions, we must throw out the rule as a whole. Isn’t that right?
The far better answer would be to point out that the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples can and do have children without any outside assistance whatsoever, while absolutely NO homosexual couple can naturally produce a child. Period.
WHO are the left wing loonies, specifically? Are they anywhere NEAR as looney and cartoony as say Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin or John Boner?
Let’s see, there’s Van Jones the 9/11 Truther, Jeremiah Wright the Holocaust denier and Jew-blamer, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel the I don’t pay my taxes man, Nancy “Unemployment Checks are the Best Stimulus Ever!” Pelosi, Harry “Clean and Articulate with No Negro Dialect” Reid, Barack “Kick-Ass” Obama…..
In reading, it looks like the Governour’s actions were based on a) last minute parlimentary hijinks as well as that this went to the people in the form of an ammendment once already, and she feels they should override it the same way.
my logic is sound. the fact that the vast majority of persons under 16 must be protected by sexual relationship with older people (when perhaps some people at 15 years and one half can be considered mature enough) creates a law that doesn’t permit a fast and non -invasive way to discern between the mature and not-mature people. i affirm without any doubt that a very simple law that forbids marriage(or the recognition of marriage in this blog newspeak)to women above 58 will not deprive any naturally conceived child of his married parents.