Hawaii Governor vetoes Civil Unions

[Stormraven]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070604172.html

Out here in CA, the opponents of Same-Sex Marriage claim that we don't need it because we have civil unions.

Today, in Hawaii, we see the true opinion of those opponents, writ large. They accept civil unions, grudgingly, when they know it's their best bet to avoid same-sex marriages, but if they're certain they can block the one, they'll work their best to block the other.

[smileyeagle1021]

Stormraven... Hawaii isn't the first, nor is it the last, to prove that the opponents of gay marriage don't give a shit about the word marriage, they care about proving that homosexuality is inferior.

[Exaspera]

I'm surprised at that article. Hawaii usually is much more liberal.

[HYHYBT]

I always love* when politicians (or others, but politicians especially) use the "voters should decide this" excuse when they know {darn} well that there is no mechanism for that to happen, and they would never make the same claim for any other issue. Anything else at all, they understand how REPRESENTATIVE democracy is supposed to work and what legislatures are for, but if it has anything to do with gays suddenly it becomes a matter for popular vote.

[jackfaire]

If a representative likes something,

"We can't trust the voters with this they don't always know what is best for themselves"

If they don't,

"Well really the voters know what is best and should decide rather than those of us they elected to decide these things deciding"

[Hobbs]

In Switzerland, popular vote is how they decide someone's citizenship, which I find an even more egregious form of denying legal rights. That said, it does make a certain sense that this type of vote would be given to the population rather than the legislature. While Jackfaire makes a valid argument, I think there is an interesting parallel between the Swiss law and the way this was handled.

[Red Panda]

Hawiai has a large Japanese population and the Japanese often disaprove of homos so that is probaly it.

[HYHYBT]

Hobbs: that might be true, in a system set up to allow laws to be determined by popular vote. This is not, to the best of my knowledge, what Hawaii has. "I can't let the legislature do this because the public needs to vote on it, which they cannot do either so it'll never happen" is never a sensible way to go about things.

[Hobbs]

Point being...should the legislature make all decisions then, and keep the public out of decision-making? I'd be pretty perturbed if I thought my vote didn't count for jack.

[smileyeagle1021]

Point being...should the legislature make all decisions then, and keep the public out of decision-making? I'd be pretty perturbed if I thought my vote didn't count for jack.

But your vote does count for jack. If you do not agree with the decisions that a current representative makes, come the next election you vote for a different representative who will make different decisions.
I agree with the premise of putting important issues up to vote, but what do we consider important? In Utah liquor laws, school spending, child tax deductions, and making sure we have the freeway capacity to never need mass transit.
If we voted directly in Utah, liquor would be outlawed, schools would have no funding, the child tax credit would make it so mormon families paid no taxes and everyone else with small families would shoulder the burden of funding the state and all the money taken from schools would be funneled into making I-15 a 20 lane each direction super freeway.
Democracy is good at first glance, but true democracy bogs itself down and turns into chaos, that is why the founding fathers created the nation as a republic.

[protege]

Point being...should the legislature make all decisions then, and keep the public out of decision-making? I'd be pretty perturbed if I thought my vote didn't count for jack.

I remember an instance in Pennsylvania...when our votes *didn't* count for jack. Those new stadiums that were foisted on us? Those, were originally put on the ballot for us to vote on. We, the voters, decided not to pander to the whims of sports teams...and voted the measure down. Did that stop it? Of course not! Our elected officials, which were supposed *represent* us...said "fuck you," and went ahead and did it anyway, screwing us all over in the process. Never mind that the 1970-built 3 Rivers wasn't (and still isn't) paid off, our elected idiots caved to the pressure of a few rich idiots. Namely, the idiots who currently own the Pirates...who said they needed a new stadium "so they could remain competitive." Did I mention that the team still sucks ass roughly 10 years later?

With that said, do we really want our elected officials making the decisions on the important issues? Officials, that have no qualms about taking money (bribes) from lobbyists?

[AdminAssistant]

One of those new stadiums in Pittsburgh also screwed Kansas City, since KC was recruiting their hockey team to move to the Sprint Center.

[jackfaire]

I think that sometimes when it comes to protecting civil rights yes the vote needs to be made by our representatives and not necessarily on what is popular.

How many white landowning men would have voted to grant voting rights to people from different backgrounds who might then use said votes to put forth their own interests.

Yes sometimes representatives screw us but they also help us get the rights that our community doesn't want us to have.