canspice.org

Three bills have been introduced to the Hawaii State Legislature (HB444, HB878, and SB458) that would allow civil unions between same-sex partners. House Bill 444 has a large number of sponsors in the Legislature, and on Thursday the House Judicial Committee recommended that it be passed.

While it’s about time that this sort of thing get passed in Hawaii, it’s not without its detractors. Take, for example, Hawaii Family Forum. As I said on Twitter, you can tell when an organization is stuck in the 1950s when it has “Family” in its name. Hawaii Family Forum is a fine example. As I found out yesterday* Hawaii Family Forum and the Roman Catholic Church (big surprise) are urging constituents to call their elected officials to get them to vote against the civil union bills.

Well, okay, they have every right to do so. But let’s look at their talking points on civil unions:

The people have spoken. In 1998, the people of Hawaii sent a clear message that marriage in Hawaii must remain between one man and one woman. Civil unions are just another attempt to thwart the will of the people. This civil union proposal is an attempt to legitimize gay marriage simply by using another title. The people have also spoken through their representatives in reaching the artful compromise that established Hawaii’s reciprocal beneficiary law. The law achieved the goal of providing benefits – without basing those benefits on the ill-advised sex-partner status test. The people of Hawaii have put these issues behind them. The legislature should not re-open divisive, controversial battles that have already been settled by the people.

This refers to Article I, Section 23 of the Hawaii State Constitution which reads, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” The counter-argument to this is one of the arguments that the “no gay marriage” crowd sometimes trots out: civil unions aren’t marriage. Here’s how that argument goes: “We don’t want gay people to get married because marriage is a sacred institution. Why can’t gay people have civil unions instead?”

Besides, laws are enacted with specific language and wording for a reason: to make things clearer. In the eyes of the law, only gay marriage is banned in Hawaii. Gay civil unions aren’t.

Hawaii already has a reciprocal beneficiary law. In 1997 the Reciprocal Beneficiary Act HRS §572C (RBA) became law. This law allows two persons who are legally prohibited from marrying one another under state law to register their reciprocal beneficiary relationship by filing a notarized declaration with the state director of health. The RBA affords reciprocal beneficiaries certain rights that previously were reserved to spouses, for example, standing to sue for wrongful death and other tort claims, rights to an elective share upon death, authority to make health care decisions, rights to workers’ compensation benefits, rights to receive payments of wages on the death of an employee, and rights to family leave under state law.

This is quite true. However, it doesn’t afford gay couples the same rights as straight couples. As Hawaii Family Forum points out, it only affords certain rights and not equal rights.

Do we want to save the “name” of marriage, or do we want to save “marriage?” Civil unions, same-sex marriages, and domestic partnerships have the same effect of destroying marriage as we know it. When governments offer sex-partner benefits, they are essentially endorsing “gay marriage.” These sex-partner benefits send the message of government sanction of such relationships and take us one short step away from legalizing “marriage” between two people of the same sex. Marriage by any other name is still marriage.

I don’t actually see an argument against civil unions here, other than the vapid “civil unions… have the same effect of destroying marriage as we know it.” The best counter-argument to this talking point is “so?”

This points to their first point, where gay marriage is banned in the State Contitution. Well, unfortunately for the discriminatory voters back then, they didn’t allow for a broader definition of the word “marriage”.

Those who would redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is “love.” Yet if one accepts that rationale, then there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage; any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as traditional marriage. While love is vital, it is not the definitional element of marriage. We love many people we do not marry.

This is part of the “slippery slope” argument that usually goes something like “if we allow gay marriage then we’ll have to allow polygamists to marry and we’ll have to allow people to marry their dogs and we’ll have to allow people to marry trees and oh god it’s all so horrible.” Well, no. See, polygamy is a choice. Bestiality is a choice. Being gay isn’t. There’s no slippery slope here, you just have to stop discrimination against people for being what they are. Banning polygamy is banning a lifestyle choice, and homosexuality isn’t a choice. See, there’s a difference here.

Besides, people marry for reasons other than love all the time.

Marriage is not an American invention. It has existed as an institution since the beginning of civilization, and thus transcends our modern laws. Every long-standing society has viewed marriage as a union of male and female. Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when societies deviate from the standard of marriage as the foundation of its society, they inevitably deteriorate and eventually disintegrate.

Slavery was around before the United States came along, and the US banned that. Human sacrifice was around before the United States came along, and the US banned that. Discrimination towards gay people was around before the United States came along, and it’s about time that something was done about banning that too.

I for one would like to see some of these studies mentioned in this talking point. Especially those that make a direct link between deviations from the standard of marriage and the downfall of society.

Traditional marriage and family should not be undermined. The data are clear and irrefutable – children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. Hawaii’s children must have healthy examples. Today, with 25 million children fatherless, it is callous to the extreme to be rewriting our most basic marriage laws to suit the desires of adults.

This argument never made any sense to me. “Heterosexual people suck at marriage, therefore homosexual people can’t do it.” Maybe Hawaii Family Forum should concentrate on getting heteros to stay together in marriage instead of spreading more seeds of discrimination against homos?

People should not be granted special legal protection and benefits based on their sexual preferences and behaviors.

The “sexual preferences” fallacy aside, I actually agree with this. Therefore I think Hawaii Family Forum will join me in calling for an end to special legal protection and benefits for heterosexual couples. Why should heteros get special rights that not everybody can have? That’s what special rights are, rights afforded to one group but not another! Ban straight marriage!

Oh, is that not their argument? Then I still agree with them, there should be no special rights for certain groups, so let’s give everybody the same rights!

Because that’s what this is all about: equal rights. What happened to the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are all men not created equal? Are you only equal if you like penis-in-vagina? I don’t remember reading that clause anywhere.

If you’re at all concerned about equal rights, speak out against Hawaii Family Forum and other discriminatory groups like them. Speak out in favour of equal rights legislation in your State Legislatures.

* I’d originally linked to the Twitter post where I found out about Hawaii Family Forum and its stance on civil unions, but on request of that post’s author I’ve removed their name and the link to the post.