WAVE 'ALOHA' TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

wnd.com ^ | 07/23/2012 | DREW ZAHN

[massmike]

Oral arguments for summary judgment will be heard tomorrow in a Hawaii lawsuit that not only challenges the state’s constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage, but also asserts the new “civil unions” law doesn’t go far enough.

According to court documents, Hawaii was poised to become the first state in the union to permit same-sex marriage back in 1996, when a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling found the state had no compelling interest to limit marriage to its traditional definition. But while a temporary stay on the ruling was in place, the voters of Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment giving the state legislature the right to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

That amendment has held to this day and deflected attempts to redefine marriage until a new statute permitting civil unions of homosexual couples went into effect Jan. 1 of this year.

Now a pair of homosexual couples in the case of Jackson v. Abercrombie are challenging the state’s marriage law and constitutional amendment. One of the couples in the case, Gary Bradley and his unnamed, foreign-born partner, have been joined in a civil union since the beginning of the year, but now demand full status as “married” spouses.

“The state’s denying same-sex partners the right to marry is injurious and demeaning,” the couples’ case insists, “because … the withholding of the right to marry constitutes the rebuke that same-sex relationships are not entitled to the same respect as those of heterosexual couples.”

[nickcarraway]

All that was ever needed was it to be legal in one state. Marriage has never been a state issue. If that was true, then a man married to one woman in Oregon and one woman in Georgia would not be guilty of bigamy. A couple married in Idaho still files taxes as a married couple in Texas.

[Tau Food]

Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, broadening marriage to include homosexual couples renders all marriage to be as meaningless as homosexual marriage. And, homosexual marriage is by definition totally meaningless.

In fact, no matter what judges or legislatures might say, homosexual marriage just isn't marriage at all.

[madprof98]

same-sex relationships are not entitled to the same respect as those of heterosexual couples

Sounds like pure common sense.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Wouldn’t this be a first, for a state to toss a provision in its own constitution, not in a referendum or other amendment process, but in its own state court?

Why is the state court even entertaining this, rather than telling them, get yer own amendment, or sue at the Federal level, we can’t do squat?

[fwdude]

All that was ever needed was it to be legal in one state.

Thank Romney in large part for that.

[jdege]

Wouldn’t this be a first, for a state to toss a provision in its own constitution, not in a referendum or other amendment process, but in its own state court?

There is a long-established construct that if two legal provisions conflict, the most recently adopted trumps.

Which means that even if the Court were to find that the marriage amendment conflicted with earlier constitutional provisions, it'd be the earlier provisions that would have to be set aside.

Which doesn't mean that the Court won't rule otherwise - but for it to do so would clearly be a criminal act.

[LeoWindhorse]

Sodom and Maui

God will judge the people of these islands severely one day if this insanity and depravity continues .

Fear God , He takes notes....

[HiTech RedNeck]

Pele will be angry

[Mack the knife]

All that was ever needed was it to be legal in one state. Marriage has never been a state issue. If that was true, then a man married to one woman in Oregon and one woman in Georgia would not be guilty of bigamy. A couple married in Idaho still files taxes as a married couple in Texas.

---

You are both correct and incorrect.

Marriage is a State issue - different States have different standards for a marriage license.

The Constitution requires one State to recognize the legal proceedings of another State. When it became predictable that one State would recognize homosexual “marriage”, Congress passed and the President signed the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which allowed a State to NOT recognize a homosexual “marriage” performed in another State.

The DOMA was challenged in federal court, and Obama and Holder refused to defend it. The House has hired someone to defend it, and it is on the way to the Supreme Court.

This is another case in which the liberals wish to govern by overriding the “consent of the governed”.