Twice-divorced Hawaii Gov vetoes Civil Unions Bill

[mainejeff]

The fact that you have no desire to marry a man, whereas Jon and Travis (potentially) do. What's so complicated about this, Baldy?

And I might (potentially) have the desire to drive 75 in a 55, but it's illegal. too.
Your point?

Here comes the CONK red herrings........*yawn*

[Baldy]

Again, everyone has the same rights.

I can get married, you can get married, Jon can get married, and even Travis can get married. The only stipulation is that, by law, you can't marry a man, I can't marry a man, Jon can't marry a man, and yes even Travis can't marry a man.

Baldy......is this due to religious beliefs?

What?

No, it's based on the law.
You don't pay very close attention, do you?

[mainejeff]

And I might (potentially) have the desire to drive 75 in a 55, but it's illegal. too.
Your point?

The majority WILL drive 75 in a 55. They can't marry at all, that's the difference. Gay marriages DOES NOT ever affect straight ones, period.

Unless you are a CONK closet case (and there are MANY!).....then you might feel left out if all of your tricks end up getting married.

[mainejeff]

Baldy......is this due to religious beliefs?

What?

No, it's based on the law.
You don't pay very close attention, do you?

So we keep our laws just for the sake of keeping them? What exactly is the "threat" to heterosexual marriage......and the reasoning behind that train of thought?

Poor Baldy.......on the wrong side of history......again.

[Baldy]

What?

No, it's based on the law.
You don't pay very close attention, do you?

So we keep our laws just for the sake of keeping them? What exactly is the "threat" to heterosexual marriage......and the reasoning behind that train of thought?

Poor Baldy.......on the wrong side of history......again.

Poor jeff, still ignorant....

If you want the law changed, you know the process. Is it that difficult to understand?
I have stated the truth and nobody has been able to refute the fact that not one person's rights have been denied.

Making the silly claim that I am on the "wrong side of history" just shows that you don't know the facts of the issue.

[Grizalltheway]

The point is that requiring marriage to between a man and a woman is arbitrary. Other than ignorance and homophobia there is no logical reason against allowing any two consenting adults to get married.

Just because everyone has the same rights doesn't make it right. If the government took away our right to vote we'd all have the same rights, but I don't think we'd be happy about it.

Actually, there not a fundamental right to vote in federal elections, but that is a different topic.

Which explains why you brought it up.

[AZGrizFan]

Get the government out of the marriage business. Period.

[Chizzang]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

[Grizalltheway]

I really love the ad system that Chris has set up on here.

[OSBF]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

What's that I hear, is that a cricket chirping?

Sure got quiet in here all of a sudden.

[blueballs]

If the gay people knew what a hassle and a racket divorce is they would be running as far away from marriage as possible.

[mainejeff]

If the gay people knew what a hassle and a racket divorce is they would be running as far away from marriage as possible.

Kids aren't involved (most of the time) and neither are nagging wives (for the men).......not sure that the "hassle effect" would exist to the extent is does in heterosexual marriages. No doubt that the "racket" for divorce would still be in effect though......lawyers and government will get their cut!

[citdog]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

I vote no. SC will do what the people of this State want to do. We will NOT be forced to perform or recognize the unholy unions of the love that dare not speak its name. This is fact.

[Baldy]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

Dance? I stated plain and simple facts that nobody has been able or will be able to refute.

The answer to the question is the same as the other dozen times I commented on it...I couldn't give a sh!t who marries whom, it's not going to affect my life one little bit.

[Chizzang]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

Dance? I stated plain and simple facts that nobody has been able or will be able to refute.

The answer to the question is the same as the other dozen times I commented on it...I couldn't give a sh!t who marries whom, it's not going to affect my life one little bit.

Same here... Zero affect - but I'll take your reply as a firm "No Vote"
but I would vote yes to two consenting adult being allowed to marry whoever

[BlueHen86]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

Dance? I stated plain and simple facts that nobody has been able or will be able to refute.

The answer to the question is the same as the other dozen times I commented on it...I couldn't give a sh!t who marries whom, it's not going to affect my life one little bit.

If you don't give a sh!t who marries whom, why comment on it a dozen times?

[D1B]

It's been fun watching Baldy dance... but really the question then becomes okay: How would you VOTE as far as a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

What say you Baldy...?



this might get interesting

Dance? I stated plain and simple facts that nobody has been able or will be able to refute.

The answer to the question is the same as the other dozen times I commented on it...I couldn't give a sh!t who marries whom, it's not going to affect my life one little bit.

Sure bout that? A bill passing like that may bury the issue and your conk representatives may then have to actually do something substantial or prove they have real intelligence to get elected. Of course, those idiots will still have abortion to hang their entire political careers on...

[JoltinJoe]

Seriously, all this commotion over a "civil unions" bill? Does the governor really mean that state legislatures should not vote on civil unions bills?

Politicians, when tempted to do something like this, should remember that every dumb action has unintended consequences.

[CID1990]

I'm amused that a thread describing something that happens in the Hawaii government can turn into a conservative-bashing thread.

BTW- I had a thought... it was born back when all those black folks showed up to vote in CA and while they were voting almost unanimously for Barack O' Bama they also voted about 75% to stick it to the queers.

It got me to thinking... will the continuing influx of detritus from sh!tholes like Mexico, Guatemala, Algeria, Somalia, etc etc etc cause our voting habits to become more gay friendly, or less?

PS- I think the fudge packers have just as much right to be fvcking miserable as the rest of us.

[89Hen]

Same here... Zero affect - but I'll take your reply as a firm "No Vote"
but I would vote yes to two consenting adult being allowed to marry whoever

So a father could marry his son?

[Baldy]

Dance? I stated plain and simple facts that nobody has been able or will be able to refute.

The answer to the question is the same as the other dozen times I commented on it...I couldn't give a sh!t who marries whom, it's not going to affect my life one little bit.

Sure bout that? A bill passing like that may bury the issue and your conk representatives may then have to actually do something substantial or prove they have real intelligence to get elected. Of course, those idiots will still have abortion to hang their entire political careers on...

If the Donk tards elect a never ending cavalcade of card carrying morons like Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Obama, Feingold, Schumer, Maxine Waters, Corrine Brown, etc, etc, etc, etc, the Republicans have absolutely nothing to worry about.

[OL FU]

Wasn't it state and local legislators that enacted Jim Crow laws in the first place?

Hey *******, who gives a **** you snickety prick?

One question you smug **** pompous ass fat piece of hypocritical greedy **** - What would Jesus do?

SMFH at violent catholic dumbfucks like Hen and Hogan who say they believe in the values of jesus yet fail, time after time, to practice them.

Logic and Reason at its finest

[Chizzang]

Same here... Zero affect - but I'll take your reply as a firm "No Vote"
but I would vote yes to two consenting adult being allowed to marry whoever

So a father could marry his son?

[OL FU]

My take on this is unfortunately like many other social issues. I support gay marriage. I voted against South Carolina's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a few years ago. (can't remember it if was an amendment or a referendum). But at the same time, I don't see how the equal protection clause applies now to something it was never intended to apply to. I have the same conflict on abortion. I am pro-choice (with trepidation) but there is no way in hell that Roe v Wade was anything other than justices imposing their moral values on an issue that the political process in the states should have decided.

[89Hen]

So a father could marry his son?

Why roll your eyes? YOU are the one who asked the question...

a bill that stated only one thing on it... no associated pork or other issues

Here's the bill:

Any two legally consenting adults may choose to get married
and in so doing be recognized by the state and government as "legally Married"

Or are you now saying the wording wouldn't be that simple? That there'd have to be some caveats?