Skip to main content

Hawaii's governor continues conservative campaign against LGBT equality with same-sex veto

250wgovlindalingle.jpg

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoes LGBT right to marriage

Hawaii's Governor, two-term Republican Linda Lingle followed the conservative agenda of denying people equal rights when she vetoed a bill that would have permitted same-sex marriage.

The governor, who got max-media coverage out of the issue by stringing it out for months, made sure the last day was no different as she called leaders on both sides to be by her side when she made her predictable announcement.

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage," Lingle said at a news conference. "I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name."

She decided to veto the bill on the very last day she had to sign the bill into law, veto it, or not act, at which point the law, which passed the Hawaii legislature in April would have gone into law without her signature.

Indicating that she prefers this decision to be made by voters, the governor said, "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

The decision was predictable, because social conservatives of the Republican base do not view members of the LGBT as equal citizens under the law. Republican homophobes, some of the loudest, who can't practice what they preach, believe that the injustice and inequality that they support against the LGBT community is of a divine source, citing interpretations from the bible, which was written in a male dominated era, when women had few rights, were considered homebound slaves, and whose primary duty was to carry a man's off-spring as a result of his desire for sex.

With strong pressure from religious groups and the Right-Wing media, Governor Lingle's veto was predictable because no Republican candidate who seriously wishes to have any kind of future as an elected politician, would dare cross the line and support same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. During this era of the great GOP purge, when all candidates are held to a strict social conservative litmus test over same-sex marriage, abortion rights, gun rights and a Christian God, to do anything other than veto HB444, would have been equivalent to political suicide.

Photo credit: Wikipedia, public domain

Source: The LA Times

Comments

  • Stan Transue 4 years ago

    "...the conservative agenda of denying people equal rights..."

    Golly. I guess we all missed the part of the Constitution that identified a right to state acknowledgement of one's marriage.

    You sir, are denying the rights of all of the beastialists and pedophiles out there who want to marry gerbels or 6 year-olds. Why are you not standing up for THEIR rights you bigot!??!

  • Keepin it real 4 years ago

    I thought it was GLBT! C'mon on people. I can't keep up without being called a homophobe!

  • Keepin it real 4 years ago

    Did William miss the late great KKK membership endorsed by Bill Clinton as youthful folly looking for votes? Is that not what Obama is doing? On the hate whitey end?

  • Keepin it real 4 years ago

    For some dumb ass reason I want to marry 3 women! I am being discriminated against! I LOVE all 3! We have been in a "committed relationship" for 8 years. Where are OUR rights?

  • The New Age 4 years ago

    Man, you do surely spit into the wind! You will win this battle when you convince the people that the Christian G-d is a liar and that He should be replaced with William Skordelis.

  • classical liberal 4 years ago

    Everyone is wrong. We need a separation of marriage and state. The state should only protect and enforce legal contracts of any kind, noting more, nothing less. If a +- couple is religious, they get a religious marriage contract. The ++,--, or +-, non religious couple get legal contracts of whatever kind they write. The state only enforces that legal contract of a union. It should only get the treatment as laid out in that social contract. Collectivism/statism is a disease today. Both sides have this one wrong....