Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> THIS WEEK, HAWAII LAWMAKERS TOOK A BOLD STEP FIVING SAME SEX COUPLES THE RIGHT TO
MARRY. HOW CAN WE COME TOGETHER AFTER SUCH A CONTENTIOUS LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ON THE NEXT
INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII, WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF HAWAIIS DECISION REGARDING SAMESEX MARRIAGE?
>>MALIA: COMING UP NEXT ON INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII, WHAT WILL THE IMPACT OF HAWAIIS DECISION
REGARDING SAMESEX MARRIAGE??. ALOHA AND WELCOME TO INSIGHTS ON PBS HAWAII. IM MALIA MATTOCH.
THE PASS A.M. OF THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT HAS A TIME BEEN HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS, SOMETIMES
PITTING NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR AS THOUSANDS HAVE TURN OUT IN HAWAII TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS.
WHAT COMES NEXT FOR OUR STATE? SOME WILL CHALLENGE THE ISSUE IN THE COURTS, OTHERS WILL RUSH
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OF THE NEW LAW. WHAT DOES THE NEW LAW MEAN FOR US IN TERMS OF ECONOMY,
EDUCATION, AND CULTURE? WILL THIS CONTINUE TO BE A DIVISIVE ISSUE OR WILL WE LEARN TO
ACCEPT OUR NEIGHBORS POINT OF VIEW? WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN OUR CONVERSATION, BY CALLING,
EMAILING OR TWEETING YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. NOW, TO OUR PANEL. BISHOP ROBERT FITZPATRICK
IS IN CHARGE OF THE 9,000 MEMBER EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF HAWAII WHICH WAS THE FIRST CHURCH
TO SUPPORT THE NEW LAW. SAM SLOM A STATE SENATOR, WHO HAS VOTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL BECAUSE
HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. NOT WANTING TO
PERFORM SAMESEX MARRIAGES. CHRIS LEE IS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE WHO IS AT THE FOREFRONT
OF THE MARRIAGE PI QUALITY INITIATIVE. CHRIS BELIEVES 80% OF THE PEOPLE IN GENERATION SUPPORT
THE INITIAL TIFF. THE REVEREND SECOR IS A VICAR GENERAL OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
OF HAWAII. HE HAS BEEN WITH THE CHURCH FOR 36 YEARS. FATHER GARY HAS TESTIFIED AGAINST
THE MESH OUR ONTO BASIS THAT IT WOULD REDEFINE MARRIAGE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. SENATOR, IF I MAY START WITH YOU, THERE WAS NEWS TODAY
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SAKAMOTO REFUSED TO ISSUE A RESTRAINING ORDER TO STOP THE STATE FROM
ISSUING MARRIAGE LICENSES TO GAY COUPLES. YOUR REACTION TO THAT? ANY THOUGHTS ON FUTURE
COURT CHALLENGES WILL WE BE SEEING MORE? >> I THINK YOU WILL BE SEEING MORE. I THINK
THAT REPRESENTATIVE BOB MCDERMOTT DESERVES A LOT OF CREDIT FOR CHAMPIONING THIS ISSUE
IN THE COURTS. THOSE OF US THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE COURTS AN ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THE
CONSTITUTION KNEW THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE CHANCE THAT THERE WOULD BE A RULING IN OUR
FAVOR. ITS SOMETHING THAT IVE ARGUED OVER THE YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IF A LEGISLATURE,
A LEGISLATURE PASSES SOMETHING, THERES NO GUARANTEE THAT FUTURE LEGISLATURE WILL NOT
OVERTURN THAT OR GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION BECAUSE ONE SESSION CANNOT BIND ANOTHER FUTURE
SESSION. SO THAT WAS THAT. THAT WAS THE ISSUE.
>>MALIA: LEGISLATURE, FUTURE SESSION HOLDS MORE HOPE FOR THOSE AGAINST THIS THAN SAY
THE COURTS SYSTEM DOES? >> WELL, CERTAINLY, I THINK WERE CONSTRAINED
BY THE COURTS SYSTEM. I THINK WHAT THIS ISSUE BROUGHT ABOUT, HOWEVER, WAS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING
THATS PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR ONE THING IN 1998, VERY CLEARLY, AND ALL
OF THE MATERIAL AND THE ADVERTISEMENTS AND STATEMENTS BY THE STATE WERE VERY CLEAR AT
THE TIME. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME, 1998. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT LEGISLATURE NOW. 80% IN
THE PEOPLE IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW WERE NOT THERE AT THAT TIME. THERE PROBABLY WILL
BE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BROUGHT BECAUSE MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE
TESTIMONY OVER THE NEARLY 3 WEEKS YOURE GOING TO HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. A LOT OF
DIFFERENT THINGS OCCUR, EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOLS, SMALL BUSINESSES, AUXILIARY ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES
OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS. SO THERES A LOT MORE TO GO ON THIS. BUT MY POSITION
FROM THE BEGINNING WAS NUMBER ONE, FOR 20 YEARS, IVE SAID THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT
BE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I WAS VEHEMENT THIS SPECIAL SESSION NOT
SO SPECIAL SESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. IN THE PAST 12 YEARS, THERE WERE TWO SPECIAL
SESSIONS THAT WERE NOT RELATED TO THE SENATES RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL
AND CABINET NOMINEES. ONE, THE MOST RECENT ONE HAD TO DO WITH THE SUPERFERRY, BUT FIRST
ONE HAD TO DO WITH 9/11. AND BOTH OF THOSE I THINK WERE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES. MY POINT
OF VIEW, AND IM VERY CLEAR P THIS, IT WAS THE GOVERNOR THAT CALLED THE SPECIAL SESSION,
NOT THE LEGISLATURE. THE GOVERNOR WANTED IT. THE LEGISLATURE DIDNT WANT IT. THE GOVERNOR
WANTED IT BECAUSE HES SLIPPING IN THE POLLS. GOVERNOR WANTED IT NOW INSTEAD OF DURING AN
ELECTION YEAR, NEXT YEAR. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BACKFIRE ON HIM. I THINK
ITS GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AS WELL. WE CAN GET IN INTO THAT LATER.
>>MALIA: A LOT TO REACT TO THERE. REPRESENTATIVE LEE, I WOULD IMAGINE YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS.
>> I DO. I THINK THAT THE GOVERNOR ACTUALLY CALLED THIS FROM HIS OWN PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE
ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WE HAVE LEGISLATURE AND A STATE THAT HAS BEEN ASKED BY THE GOVERNOR
TO TAKE ACTION AND WE DID. SPECIAL SESSION, AS THE STAR ADVERTISER POINTED OUT THIS MORNING,
WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT TO ENSURE A PROCESS THAT IS MOST INCLUSIVE. DURING A REGULAR SESSION,
YOURE NEVER GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP EVERYTHING AND HEAR FIVE DAYS OF TESTIMONY
ON A BILL OR HAVE WEEK OF NOTICE IN ADVANCE THAT A BILL IS COMING UP FOR A HEARING. GOING
THROUGH THAT, WE HAD FANTASTIC DIALOGUE AND IT WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
MAXIMIZE PUBLIC INPUT. I WANTED TO TOUCH ON SOMETHING LOOKING FORWARD, OF COURSE, OUR
CURRENT LEGISLATURE CANNOT BIND FUTURE LEGISLATURE. WE CANNOT SAY, THIS IS THE END OF THE LOIN
FOR IN ISSUE OR ANY OTHER. FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT CALL FOR THEMSELF.
I THINK ITS GOING TO GET MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT AS TIME PASSES TO GO THE OTHER DIRECTION AND
STEP BACKWARD BECAUSE AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, I DO THINK VAST MAJORITY OF OUR YOUNGER GENERATION
GROWING UP SUPPORT THIS ISSUE. SUPPORT IT AS AN EQUAL RIGHTS ISSUE FOR EVERYBODY. SUPPORT
TREATING MUCH WITH THE SAME RESPECT, AND ALOHA PARTICULARLY HERE IN HAWAII THAT WE ALL DESERVE.
I WOULDNT SAY ACROSS THE BOARD, 80% OF OUR GENERATION, IT DEPENDS ON THE DEMOGRAPHIC
YOURE LOOKING AT. LOCATION. GENERALLY YOUNGER GENERATIONS SUPPORT IT.
>>MALIA: WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THIS SESSION AND WHERE DO YOU THINK WE GO FROM THERE?
>> WELL, I AGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE LEE, THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE TREATED WITH LOVE
AND RESPECT. EVERYONE INCLUDING OUR GAY AND LESBIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,
WE DONT THINK THATS LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE. WE FEEL THAT
THIS WAS A MANUFACTURED CIVIL RIGHT, CERTAINLY CIVIL RIGHTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, BUT IN OUR
VIEW, THERE WASNT A NEED TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE TO GIVE CIVIL RIGHTS FOR MARRIAGE TO GAY COUPLES.
CERTAINLY PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THEMSELVES TO BE GAY OR LESBIAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE
WHO THEY ARE, BUT IN OUR VIEW, THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A RIGHT TO BE WHO YOU ARE AND
ACTIVITY OR BEING MARRIED. IN OUR VIEW, MARRIAGE IS ALREADY RESTRICTED IN MANY RESPECTS. YOU
CANT MARRY YOUR SISTER OR BROTHER OR CERTAIN COUSIN. SO WE DONT THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED AS A CIVIL RIGHT. IDENTICAL TO OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS WHICH WE ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR
OF. BUT NOT THIS ONE. >>MALIA: BISHOP, CIVIL RIGHT?
>> WELL, IT IS IN THE SENSE THAT I THINK THE SENATOR TOUCHED ON THIS. AS LONG AS THE STATE
IS INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE, AND ITS PART OF COMMON LAW, THAT WE HAVE INHERITED IN THE UNITED
STATES, IT MEANS THAT ISSUE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND EQUITY DO COME INTO PLAY. SO UNLESS THE
STATE GETS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS, AND UNLESS MARRIED COUPLES SPECIAL PRIVILEGES
THAT ARE GRANTED TO THEM BY THE STATE ARE REMOVED, THEN ITS BY NECESSITY AN ISSUE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS AND FOR SOME, ITS A ISSUE OF PASTORAL CARE.
>> I HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION IT IS NOT CIVIL RIGHT. NO COURT IN THE COUNTRY HAS EVER RULED
THAT SAMESEX MARRIAGE OR MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT. PROBLEMS NAGS ANDLY AND LOCALLY, WE HAVE SPECIAL
INTEREST GROUPS THAT DEMAND CERTAIN THINGS. WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE DONT WANT GMO OR THIS OR THAT. AND THEY CALL IT A RIGHT. WERE MIXING UP LICENSE AND
PRIVILEGE WITH RIGHT. I WANTED TO REEMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT I SAID AT THE OUTSET ABOUT
WHY I DIDNT THINK THIS WAS A REQUIRED ITEM FOR A SPECIAL SESSION. LOOK, THIS IS NOT AN
URGENT ISSUE. IT WAS NOT URGENT AT THIS TIME. WHAT IS URGENT IS OUR STATE IS SUFFERING ECONOMICALLY.
WE ARE REALLY IN POOR CONDITION. WE HAVE GOT ALMOST EVERYBODY IN THIS STATE STRUGGLING
NOW MORE SO THAN THEY EVER DID. WEVE GOT INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS. HEALTH PROBLEMS. WEVE GOT ALL OF
THESE THINGS. CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING ABUSED. WE SAY WERE THE STATE FOR THE KEIKI. AND YET
WE DONT HAVE SOMETHING LIKE JESSICAS LAW AND DONT TAKE CARE OF THEM. SO ITS A MISPLACED
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, MISPLACED ISSUE WHERE YOU PUT *** ORIENTATION IN PEOPLES PRIVATE
CHOICES ABOVE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE REALLY SHOULD BEING DOING. THATS GOOD. I AGREE WITH
YOU. NOW ITS BEHIND US. SO NOW WE GO FOR. I THINK ON ISSUES OF IMMIGRATION, OF CARING
FOR THE POOR, DEALING WITH POVERTY, DEALING WITH ISSUES OF ECONOMIC JUSTICE THAT I THINK
CERTAINLY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EPOSCOPAL CHURCH CAN WORK TOGETHER ON.
>>MALIA: UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IS SAYING THAT THIS COULD GIVE HAWAII A $217†MILLION BOOST.
YOUR REACTION TO THAT IS THIS. WELL, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF STUDY US. WEVE SEEN THAT
IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS WHEN WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION AND IVE
BEEN INVOLVED WITH IT FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, IT WAS ALL ABOUT LOVE AND COMPASSION AND EQUALITY.
WHAT WE REALLY FOUND OUT DURING THIS SPECIAL SESSION WAS IT WASNT ABOUT THAT AT ALL. ITS
ABOUT BENEFITS. ITS ABOUT TAX PRIVILEGES. ITS ABOUT MAKING EQUAL PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT
STRATAS AND DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION. AND I HAD SAID ALL ALONG, WHEN PEOPLE WERE ADVOCATING,
FOR EXAMPLE, RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARIES AND THEN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AND CIVIL UNIONS,
IF THERE WERE THINGS TO BE DONE, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THEM. CERTAINLY, THE CONGRESS AND
THE LEGISLATURE HAD THE ABILITY TO DID THAT. THE MESSAGE I GOT WAS, ALL THROUGH THIS IS,
WE WANTED SAME BENEFITS AS THOSE GUYS HAVE. THATS WHAT IT WAS. SO I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP
THAT IN MIND. AS WE GO AHEAD, YOU WERE SAYING AT THE OUTSET, IF WE CAN RESPECT OTHER PEOPLES
VIEWS. I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT. I TALKED ABOUT CIVILITY AND RESPECT ALL DURING THESE
DISCUSSIONS AND PREVIOUSLY. AND WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE RESPECTFUL ON ANY ISSUE. BUT HERE,
YOU HAD A SITUATION UNLIKE ANY OTHER BEFORE WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SPLIT. SO DIAMETRICALLY.
EVERY ONE OF US PROBABLY HAVE INDIVIDUALS HOMOSEXUAL PERSUASION, IT DOESNT MEAN WE LOVE
THEM ANY LESS, BUT THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT. THE ISSUE IS TRYING TO FORCE LEGISLATIVELY
ONE PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW OPPOSED TO ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW. ONE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE
AND RELIGIOUS ISSUE OPPOSED TO ANOTHER. SO WHILE WELL GET TOGETHER AND SING KUMBAYAH
AND ALOHA OI AND ALL OF THAT, THESE DIVISIONS WILL REMAIN BECAUSE YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE
TO DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY DONT BELIEVE IN. I THINK THAT PEOPLE THAT CAME DOWN HERE
IN THE THOUSANDS, RECORD NUMBERS, WE NEVER BEFORE SAW THAT BEFORE. HEAR GOING TO REMEMBER
IN A THEY DIDNT GET ANY SOLACE FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, FROM THE LEGISLATURE BRANCH AND THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY STAY TOGETHER AND THAT WE WORK FOR THINGS
INITIATIVE REFERENDUM AND RECALL AND TERM LIMITS WE DONT HAVE.
>>MALIA: REPRESENTATIVE LEE DO, YOU THINK THERES GOING TO BE A LOT OF FALL OUT ON THE
NEXT ELECTION. I DONT. I THINK IF WE LOOK BACK TO THE CIVIL UNIONS DEBATE WHICH HAPPENED
JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, IT WAS EQUAL OPPOSITION AN SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY. YOU HAD A WHOLE
LOT OF DIVISION AND FOLKS CAME DOWN TO THE CAPITOL. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT BECAME
AN ELECTIONS ISSUE. THE ADVERTISER AND OTHER MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS WERE ASKING WHERE
DO YOU FALL ON THIS. OUT TO THE PUBLIC. SOME PEOPLE HAD ATTACK PIECES DONE BASED ON THAT
ISSUE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT CAME BACK AND WE
ARE NOW HERE AND WE HAD A VOTE ON SAMESEX MARRIAGE WHICH IS CIVIL UNIONS IN A SENSE
REHASHED. YET, WE ARE HERE. I DONT THINK ANYONE EXPECTS TO HAVE A CHANGE POLITICALLY BECAUSE
OF IT. LET ME STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT RIGHTS. I DO AGREE, BENEFITS
AND RIGHTS BEING PARSONSED OUT EQUALLY TO ALL FAMILIES IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
EVERYONE IS GOING TO HAVE CHILDREN, RAISING THEIR FAMILIES WHETHER THIS BILL PASSES OR
NOT. TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FEDERAL BENEFITS, BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE TAX INCENTIVES TO PAY
FOR KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL AND RAISE THEM RIGHT, IS CRITICAL. WE HAD $217†MILLION UNIVERSITY
OF HAWAII SAID THE STATE IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM FROM ADDITIONAL TOURISM AND REVENUE FOR
FOLKS COMING IN. ITS NOT JUST WEDDING CEREMONIES, PEOPLE STAYING HERE, COMING TO THESE WEDDING
CEREMONIES. SPENDING MONEY. SMALL BUSINESSES STAND TO BENEFIT HUGELY BECAUSE OF THIS. WE
HAD 200 PLUS BUSINESS LARGE AND SMALL COME IN, THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IN ADDITION
TO PROVIDING BASIC RIGHTS AND EQUAL TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE.
>>MALIA: I WANT TO GET TO, WERE GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS. FROM SHARON. DO THE OPPONENTS
IT GAY MARRIAGE FAVOR LETTING THE PEOPLE DECIDE AND WILL THEY ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF SUCH
A VOTE? WILL THEY DROP THEIR OPPOSITION IF A MAJORITY OF VOTERS FAVOR SAMESEX MARRIAGE?
ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? >> LET ME SPEAK TO THAT. QUITE FRANKLY, I
DONT BELIEVE THATS ISSUE OF THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PUT TO A VOTE. I BELIEVE,
MY UNDERSTANDING OF GOD AND WHAT GOD HAS DESIGNED US IS MARRIAGECY BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN AND
THAT DOESNT CHANGE BECAUSE MAJORITY FEELS DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WHILE I THINK THE EFFORT TO LET PEOPLE DECIDE IS WELL MEANING IN TERMS OF, WELL MEANT IN
TERMS OF RESPECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, FROM THE BEGINNING, WE HAVENT, WE THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH HAVENT FELT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE VOTED ON.
>>MALIA: WOULD ANYONE WANT TO SEE A VOTE? >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. WE HAD A VOTE, THAT WAS
WHAT 1998 WAS ALL ABOUT. NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD TOLD ME LAST WEEK, THAT WAS 15 YEARS AGO.
WELL, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS OVER 200 YEARS AGO. THE FACT OF THE MATTER
WAS IT WAS A VOTE. 70% OF THE PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE VOTING FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. I DONT THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED
BUT THEY ARE INVOLVED. SINCE THE GOVERN GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED, I THINK THE MESSAGE TO THE THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE THAT CAME DOWN TO THE CAPITOL OVER THE LAST 2 AND A HALF WEEKS WAS, THEY THOUGHT
PEOPLE WERE GOING TO LISTEN TO THEM. LOOK, COME ON LETS BE HONEST ABOUT THIS. THIS WHOLE
THING WAS SCRIPTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IT WAS A DAN DEAL. EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THE†
IT WAS A DONE DEAL. EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THE VOTE WAS GOING TO BE.
I DONT THINK ONE VOTE CHANGED FROM AUGUST TIL NOW. THE GOVERNOR THOUGHT HE WAS GOING
TO GET AWAY WITH THIS IN FIVE DAYS. WENT INTO THE THIRD WEEK. AND IT WAS BECAUSE PESKY PEOPLE
GOT IN THE WAY. THEY WANTED TO HAVE A VOICE. WHAT I SAID EARLIER WAS WE SAY THAT THE PEOPLE
ARE SMART ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR US, THEYRE SMART NOW HAVE TO GIVE US PERKS AND BENEFITS AND
EXCLUSIONS AND ALL OF THAT BUT THEYRE NOT SMART ENOUGH ON AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDED THE
COMMUNITY? LET THE PEOPLE VOTE AND LETS SEE IF 80% OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE F. THEY VOTE, HAVE
CHANGED THEIR MIND. I DIDNT GET THAT FROM THE TESTIMONY. I THINK THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE THEIR VIEWS, BUT THEYRE REALLY UPSET THAT THEY CAME DOWN TO THE LEGISLATURE AND
THEY FOUND THAT NOBODY WAS LISTENING TO THEM. >> I DO THINK THAT THIS ISN ISSUE WHERE YOU
LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, AND YOU LOOK BACK TO INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE BEING
LEGALIZED. LOOK BACK TO CIVIL RIGHTS, TO WOMENS SUFFRAGE, TO ENDING SLAVERY. NONE OF THESE
ABOUT UP FOR PUBLIC VOTE BECAUSE WE DONT VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS IN THIS
NATION. THEY ARE THERE AND PROTECTED BECAUSE WE DONT SUBJECT THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY TO
THE WILL OF A MAJORITY WHO MAY TYRANNIZE THEM. SO LOOKING AT THIS, WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE
IN HAWAII IS THAT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. WE HAVE DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.
WE ARE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC SET UP THAT WAY, TO VOICE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR
ELECTED LEGISLATORS. HEARING FIVE DAYS OF RECORD TESTIMONY, I THINK IT WAS 57 HOURS
WORTH OF TENS, I THINK UP TO ALMOST 5,000 PEOPLE WHO HAD SIGNED UP AND THEN TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF WRITTEN TESTIMONIES BEYOND THAT, GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH THIS ISSUE.
WE CAME OUT WITH A COMPROMISE BILL. I THINK DISAGREE WITH THE SENATOR SAYING NOT SINGLE
VOTE CHANGED. EVERYTHING WAS SCRIPTED. WE WENT IN WITHOUT EXPECTATION. GOVERNOR HAD
A BILL ON THE TABLE WHICH DIDNT GET INTRODUCED. THAT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS AMENDED. WE HEARD
A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ON THE PARTS OF CHURCHES WHO DIDNT
WANT TO HAVE TO BE FORCED TO SOLEMNIZE ANYTHING OR PROVIDE CEREMONIES THIS THEIR FACILITIES.
WE CARVED THEM OUT. MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GETTING SO MANY QUESTIONS THAT WE COVER HOW CHURCHES ARE MOVING
FORWARD GOING TO HANDLED THIS. WHAT NOW IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> WEVE ALREADY HAD CIVIL UNIONS. EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THEOLOGICALLY, ITS STILL NOT HOLY
MATRIMONY. BLESSING OF THE SAME SEX UNION. WE ARE ALSO A FEDERALIST SYSTEM, SAME FOLKS
DESIGNED THE CONSTITUTION DESIGNED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. SO IT TAKES US A LONG TIME TO
DECIDE ANYTHING. BUT WE HAVE AN AUTHORIZED LITURGY FOR THE BLESSING OF SAME SEX COUPLES.
>>MALIA: SAME SECTION COUPLE COMES TO YOU, WANTS THE MARRIAGE LICENSE.
>> PRIEST HAS THE PERSONAL OPTION OF BEING THE OFFICIANTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE. I THINK
THATS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. CLERGY ACTED AGENTS OF STATE WHEN THEY SIGN A MARRIAGE
LICENSE, THAT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ACTION. THEYLL SIGN THE MARRIAGE LICENSE AS A AGENT OF THE
STATE AND WILL USE THE RIGHT AUTHORIZED BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO BLESS THE UNION. AND
I MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BECAUSE THAT GETS US† THATS WHERE PART OF THIS CONFUSION I
THINK COMES IN THE UNITED STATES. IS THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM I THINK MUST BE UPHELD AND RESPECTED.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE AGENCY OF OF THE STATE IS ANOTHER ASPECT THAT TAKES PLACE WHEN EVERY
CLERGY PERSON OFFICIATES AT A WEDDING. EPOSCOPAL CHURCH, WHAT IVE ASKED MY CLERGY TO DO BE
SURE THEIR FOCUS HAD A LESSON. THEY THOUGHT ABOUT IT, TALKED ABOUT IT, TUBINGED THROUGH
THE THEOLOGY OF MARRIAGE AND INCLUSION. THEN EACH INDIVIDUAL PRIEST CAN CHOOSE TO OFFICIATE
OR NOT OFFICIATE. INTO THEY ARE UNCOMFORTABLE DID THEY DO NOT THE CONCEPT OF SAME SEX UNIONS
THEY CAN DECLINE. >> YES. IVE ASKED THEM TO CALL ONE OF THEIR
NEIGHBORS OR CALL ME AND WELL FIND A WAY OF DEALING PASTORLY WITH THE COUPLE.
>>MALIA: DO THEY TELL THE COUPLE THIS IS THE REASON IVE DESIGNED.
>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO. HONESTY. ALWAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF OF THE PASTORAL
RELATIONSHIP. >> WEVE HAD INCREASING NUMBERS, INCREASING
YEARS, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SEPARATION AND CHURCH AND STATE WHICH IS NOWHERE FOUND IN
THE CONSTITUTION. AND YET AS YOUVE SAID, YOU NOW BECOME AN OFFICIANT AND AN AGENT OF THE
STATE. I DONT KNOW WHETHER WERE PROGRESSING IN DOING THAT OR NOT. ILL HOLD UP TO THE FACT
THAT WE SHOULDNT BE INVOLVED. I WANT TO GET BACK TO ONE THING THIS REPRESENTATIVE LEE
SAID. I DONT WANT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE WOULD NOT HAVE
HAD A SPECIAL SESSION HAD NOT THE GOVERNOR BEEN ABLE TO TWIST ARMS AND GUARANTEE THAT
HE HAD THE VOTES WHICH WERE OBTAINED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC MEETING.
BEFORE THE SESSION WAS CALLED. IF HE DIDNT HAVE THE VOTES, WE WOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS.
>> SENATOR, YOU ARE BEATING A DEAD HORSE. PRETTY MUCH.
>> SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO BEAT IT. PEOPLE FORGET. >> SENATOR, YOURE ALSO I THINK, BY BEATING
THE DEAD HORSE, THAT IS POLITICAL REALITY. THOSE OF US AS WE ARE ADULTS, WE LIVE IN THE
REAL WORLD, YOURE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. BUT THE HORSE IS DEAD. YOUVE DONE A GOOD JOB.
>> POLITICIANS OFTEN BELIEVE THAT THEYRE SAFE IN DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO BECAUSE THE
PEOPLE WILL FORGET. AND. >> EDMUND BURKE WOULD HAVE DISAGREED. I WANT
MY REPRESENTATIVES TO VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE. >> I DO TOO.
>> WHATEVER COMES OF THAT LATER, THATS PART OF OUR PROCESS.
>> ITS WHOLE ISSUE HERE IS PUBLIC FINALLY REALIZED THAT REPRESENTATIVES HAVE NOT DONE
A GOOD JOB IN REPRESENTING THEM BECAUSE THEY SAY THIS IS BELIEVE.
>> WE DISMISS THE LINE OF BURKE IN CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY REPRESENTING CONSCIENCE IS NOT
ALWAYS REPRESENTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. SO WELL HAVE TO WAIT TIL NOVEMBER TO FIGURE
THAT OUT. >> NEXT YEAR.
>> SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ELECTION. >> LOOK AT THE PASSION THAT COME UP BECAUSE
OF THIS TOPIC. WHY DO YOU THINK THIS TOPIC IS SO DIFFICULT FOR US ALL OR FOR THE PUBLIC
TO TALK ABOUT? WHAT MAKES THIS TOP SO CHARGED? >> THERES A LOT OF HISTORY HERE. BOTH EMOTIONALLY
AND HISTORICALLY. YOU GO BACK AND FOLKS HAVE BEEN RAISED GENERATION AFTER GENERATION IN
A SOCIETY THAT FRAMES THING ONE PARTICULAR WAY. PARTICULARLY, I THINK AS WEVE SEEN THIS
PAST YEAR, FROM A RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE, 98, 98 WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP LAST PRIOR TO CIVIL
UNIONS, THERE WAS A FAIRLY LARGE RELIGIOUS COALITION BUILT AROUND THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION.
BASED ON RELIGIOUS VALUES AND BELIEFS MANY OF WHICH WERE STILL OUT HERE WAVING SIGNS
AND EVERYTHING THIS YEAR. BUT IN TIME, THAT HAS STARTED TO CHANGE. I THINK WE SEE A LOT
THE NATION, NOT JUST HERE IN HAWAII, A GENERATIONAL SHIFT JUST AS WE DID MOVING PAST CIVIL RIGHTS,
MOVING PAST INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. WHERE FOLKS TODAY ARE FAR MORE UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR
GAY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, FAMILY MEMBERS, NEIGHBORS, WHO WERE ALWAYS THERE BUT FOR WHOM
THERE WAS SOCIAL PRESSURE NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR EXISTENCE. NOT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. SO
FOR THE FIRST TIME, I THINK WERE SEEING THAT WERE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A MINORITY EXISTS
HERE AND GRANTING THEM THE SAME EQUAL TREATMENT THAT EVERYBODY DESERVES UNDER OUR LAWS.
>>. I LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY. I THINK ITS A
BROADER ISSUE THAN THAT I THINK THAT MANY OF US IN THE COMMUNITIES AND NATIONALLY HAVE
SEEN OVER THE LAST DECADE PARTICULARLY, THIS THINGS THAT WE HELD DEAR AND THINGS THAT WE
GREW UP AND THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE IN ARE BEEN STRIPPED AWAY. PRAYER FOR EXAMPLE, WE
DONT HAVE PRAYER IN THE STATE SENATE ANY MORE OR THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE,
THINGS OF NATURE. WEVE SEEN THINGS BECAUSE OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. STAR ADVERTISER,
MONOPOLY NEWSPAPER, THEY DONT REPORTED NEWS, THEYVE BEEN CHEERLEADERS FOR THIS AND OTHER
ISSUE. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BECOME VERY FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY FIGURE THEIR
VOTE DOESNT COUNT. THEIR VOICE ISNT HEARD. LOOK, WE WENT FROM NUMBER ONE IN THE NATION
IN VOTER TURNOUT IN THE 90% ILL, NOW WERE NUMBER 50 AT 48%. OF COURSE, IF YOU BELIEVE
OUR PRESIDENT, THERES 57 STATES, SO MAYBE ITS NOT THAT BAD.
>>MALIA: WILL SENATOR SLOM DROP HIS OPPOSITION TO SAMESEX MARRIAGE IF P THE ELECTORATE VOTES
IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE, OR DOES HE FAVOR A VOTE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE THINKS HIS SIDE WILL
WIN. >> NO. I BELIEVE WHATEVER THE PEOPLE DECIDE,
THATS WHAT IM GOVERNED FOR. THATS WHY I FIND IT REALLY FRUSTRATING WHEN I HEAR VOICE SAYING
THERES BEEN THIS SHIFT, THERES A WAVE, EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED. BUT WE WONT ALLOW THE PEOPLE
TO VOTE ON IT. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. BACK IN 1967, WHEN
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE WAS FINALLY LEGALIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT, ONLY 20% OF THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC APPROVED. SHOULD THAT HAVE BEEN THEN PUT TO A PUBLIC VOTE AT THAT TIME?
>> HAD IS A QUESTION FROM KAREN. IF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL HAD BEEN PUT TO A VOTE, DO YOU THINK
SCHOOLS WOULD HAVE BEEN DESEGREGATED. ITS RIDICULOUS TO PUT MINORITY VOTES UP FOR A
VOTE. >> AS A LEGISLATURE, WE PUNTED AND DEFERRED
TO THE COURTS WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT I SAID DURING THE
SESSION BECAUSE THIS HAS COME UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERRACIAL
MARRIAGE, DIFFERENCE IN OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS, IS JUST THAT. WERE TALKING ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS
AND WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT HERE. SPECIFICALLY, TO ANSWER REPRESENTATIVE LEES QUESTION, NO,
I DONT THINK THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A VOTE. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT
THE COURTS HAVE DONE, EVEN IN THE DOMA, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, DECISION HERE, WE FIND THAT
MOST OF THESE IMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE 54 VOTES. ONE INDIVIDUAL. BUT WE HAVE TO, I THINK, ALLOW
FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AND THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
THAT NOW. THATS THE REAL ISSUE. AND THAT GOES BEYOND SAMESEX MARRIAGE. INTO FATHER LET ME
ASK YOU THIS QUESTION WITH YOU. WHOSE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE BEING INHIBITED IS IF NO ONE IS
REQUIRED TO PERFORM A SAMESEX MARRIAGE? >> WELL, CERTAINLY, AS FAR AS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND
OF THE BILL ITS BEEN SIGNED INTO HAH, WE ARE PROTECTED AS RELIGIOUS MINISTERS, AS PRIESTS
FROM HAVING TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. AND THANKS TO THE AMENDMENTS AND THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES,
OUR FACILITIES ARE MUCH BETTER PROTECTED THAN I BELIEVE THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT
OF THE BILL. SO WE AS CATHOLIC PRIESTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE FORCED TO PERFORM THESE CEREMONIES.
OUR CONCERN IS OF REGARD TO OUR MEMBERS WHO MAY HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES WHO MAY QUITE PROBABLY
BE FORCED TO PROSIDE SERVICES THAT MAY GO AGAINST THEIR CONSCIENCE.
>>MALIA: UNDER THIS BILL, IF THERE IS A WEDDING VENDOR WHO IS APPROACHED BY A SAME SEX COUPLES
TO WHO DECLINES TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR WEDDING BY PROVIDING FLO YOURS OR CATERING, THEY ARE
NOT PROTECTED UNDER THIS BILL. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT POINT?
>> SURE. WE HAD THIS DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. BUNCH OF AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED
THAT POSITED THIS QUESTION. ULTIMATELY, THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE VOTED AGAINSTMENT REASON WAS
BECAUSE NOT THAT WE DONT SUPPORT PEOPLES FREEDOM TO ACT, WE DO MAINTAIN THAT HERE IN HAWAII,
WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AND WE DO NOT ENSHRINE DISCRIMINATION IN THE LAW BY GIVING ANY BUSINESS
THE ABILITY TO OPT OUT BECAUSE IF YOU OPT OUT OF THIS, YOURE ACCORDING TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT,
U.S. CONSTITUTION, OPTING OUT OF ALL PROTECTION BASED ON SINCERELY HELD RELIGION BELIEFS.
THAT WOULD ALLOW ANY BUSINESS FOR PUT A SIGN ON THE WINDOW, NO JEWS ALLOWS BECAUSE IT IS
AGAINST OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. IT COULD BE BASED ON GENDER, RACE, ANY OTHER. THING. NO
OTHER STATE, WHETHER IT HAS SAMESEX MARRIAGE HAS ADOPTED THIS PROVISION BECAUSE IT IS SO
DANGEROUS. IN THAT RESPECT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE LAW ACTUALLY HASNT CHANGED WHERE BY PASSING
THIS BILL. THE BILL DOES NOT TOUCH IT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE THIS ISN ISSUE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.
IF YOU WERE IN A CIVIL UNION AND WENT TO A FLORIST WHO HAS AN ISSUE, THEYRE ALREADY BY
LAW NOT ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE. IT DOESNT CHANGE. >> THEY DOESNT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERRACIAL
COUPLES. >> BASED ON *** ORIENTATION, NOT BASED
ON THE FACT THEYRE IN A MARRIED OR RELATIONSHIP. >> ITS NOT JUST ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ACCOMMODATING A PERSON WHO MAY CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE
GAY OR LESBIAN. THATS NOT THE ISSUE. ISSUE IS ACTIVITY BEING ACCOMMODATED THAT IS AGAINST
ONES CONSCIENCE. I MEAN, WERE NOT SAYING THAT GAY OR LESBIAN PEOPLE SHOULDNT BE PRESENT
AT CERTAIN PLACES. BUT ITS THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE COUPLE WANTS TO DO AND HAVE OTHER PEOPLE
PARTICIPATE IN WHO DONT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT BASED ON THEIR CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEFS.
THATS ITS ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER WHY ABOUT WHY WAS THIS
SUCH A PASSION AS ISSUE. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERES NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW WE
LIVE OUR LIVES. NONE OF US ARE ANGELS. NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT PERFECT, BUT WE HAVE BODIES.
WHAT WE DO WITH OUR PHYSICAL SELVES IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO WHO WE ARE. ITS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF WHO WE ARE. ONLY WAY YOU CAN EXPRESS YOURSELF, YOUR LOVE, IS WITH WHO YOU ARE PHYSICALLY.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, GAY MARRIAGE IS SYMPTOMATIC OF A MUCH MORE PERVASIVE MISUNDERSTANDING
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY. I THINK MANY HETEROSECTIONS DONT UNDERSTAND HUMAN SEXUALITY. PRIESTS WHO
HAVE VIOLATED THEIR VOWS, LETS JUST SAY IT, WITH YOUNG PEOPLE, HORRIBLE, CERTAINLY WERE
NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE GIFT OF HUMAN SEXUALITY IS ABOUT. HOW IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED. SO FROM
OUR PERSPECTIVE, THIS EFFORT TO LEGITIMIZE GAY MARRIAGE, FROM THE CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE,
IS SYMPTOMATIC OF A MUCH BROADER ISSUE. THATS WHY IT WAS SO†
>> THATS ACTUALLY WHY IT WAS PASSIONATE ACROSS THE STREET IN A DIFFERENT WAY. WHEN THE EPOSCOPAL
CHURCH, FORMER PRESIDING BISHOP BROWNING WAS BISHOP HERE, WE INCLUDED GAY AND LESBIAN FOLK
IN OUR COMMON LIFE AND IN THAT SLOW UNDERSTANDING OF MOVING TO SAYING THEYRE FULLY PART OF US,
THEYRE REALLY OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HOW DO WE INCLUDE, WE BLESS, WE MAKE THEM PART
OF THE OHANA TO PROVIDE THAT SAFE PLACE FOR THOSE TWO PEOPLE TO LIVE OUT THEIR BAPTISMAL
PROMISES. I WOULD SAY THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. WEVE ARRIVED AT DIFFERENT
CONCLUSIONS AND HOW IT DOES GET CONFUSED AND PASSIONATE IS AROUND THE CIVIL QUESTION. WHERE
YOU AND I COULD HAVE A RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION AROUND THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND THE
FAMILY IMPLICATIONS, THE DIFFICULTY COMES WHEN IT CROSSES THE STREET AN ENDS UP IN THE
LEGISLATURE WITH THE GOVERNOR. >> DIFFICULTY COMES WHEN WERE TALKING ABOUT
FORCE. WHEN YOURE FORCING SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING. >> OH, YES. WHEN WE GET BACK TO SMALL BUSINESS
YOURE GOING TO FIND OUT AS THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE, THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FORCE THEIR
WAY INTO BUSINESSES NOT ALLOWING THEM THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. YOU CAN CALL IT DISCRIMINATION.
OR YOU CAN CALL IT CHOICE. >> IT IS DISCRIMINATION.
>> REPRESENTATIVE LEE BROUGHT UP JEWS. I HAPPEN TO BE JEWISH.
>> WERE PERFECTLY FINE. >> IM GLAD THATS EPOSCOPAL CHURCH THINKS THAT.
WE HAVE DIM UNISHED PEOPLE TO NOT EXPRESS THEMSELVES, THEYVE BEEN CRITICIZED.
>> ON BOTH SIDES. >>
>> YOUVE GOT PEOPLE IN BUSINESS† WEVE CREATED A NEW CATEGORY OF LITIGIOUS ACTION AND WE
ARE A LITIGIOUS SEW TSAI. WE HAVE CREATED SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE, ALLOWING
PEOPLE TO SUE. AND SUE THEY WILL BECAUSE THERES ENOUGH ATTORNEYS AROUND AND THERES ENOUGH
ACTIVISTS AROUND. THATS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. AND THEYVE SHOWN THAT BEFORE AND THEYLL
CONTINUE TO THAT. >> I GO BACK AND SAY THATS LAW HAS NOT CHANGED.
THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED. IF YOURE A OWNER AND YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEBODY FOR
*** ORIENTATION, DAY BEFORE OR DAY AFTER THE BILL PASSED, EXAMPLE EXACT SAME THING.
>>MALIA: WE HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS. EDUCATION. THIS IS IT A QUESTION FROM GINNY IN KAILUA.
HOW ARE OUR CHILDREN GOING TO BE PROTECTED FROM EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM THAT TEACHES ABOUT
SAME SEX? REPRESENTATIVE LEE, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE.
>> SURE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS WAS THAT THERE IS ALL
OF THESE CRAZY THINGS THAT COULD BE TAUGHT TO OUR KIDS, HOW TO HAVE SEX, HOW TO HAVE
HOMOSEXUAL SEX, WHATEVER THAT IS, BECAUSE HETEROSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE DO ALL KINDS
OF THINGS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU LOOK AT OTHER STATES THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED
LIKE MASSECHUSETTS BROUGHT UP TIME AND TIME AGAIN. YOU FIND THAT A LOT OF THE ARGUMENTS
BEING MADE HAVE NO MERIT BEING TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. WERE FINDING THAT EVEN BEFORE THE
BILL WAS PASSED THERE BACK IN 2006, THERES ONLY ONE CHANGE TO THE CURRICULUM AND ALL
IT SAID WAS, CHILDREN IN THE COURSE OF AN EDUCATION SHALING TAUGHT DIFFERENT FAMILY
STRUCTURES. SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE A FAMILY WITH FATHER AND A MOTHER, TWO MOTHERS, SINGLE
PARENT FAMILY, HANAI FAMILY, WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT MARRIAGE,
ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS WRONG, ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX AT ALL. HERE IN HAWAII,
WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR D.O.E. VERY CLEARLY THAT THERE IS A VERY CLEAR OPT OUT PROVISION.
SO SHOULD ANYTHING EVER COME UP LIKE THAT, PARENT WOULD BE NOTIFIED BEFOREHAND THERE
IS NO, MAAM CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. FEEL FREE TO ON YOUR CHILD OUT. THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.
PROTECTED ABOUT BY THE BOARD AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THE BILL DOES NOT SPEAK TO EDUCATION
AT ALL. >> NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY. THERE WERE
MANY PEOPLE THAT WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THAT ASPECT OF IT. AND THEY DID POINT
TO MASSECHUSETTS. THEY DID POINT TO CANADA. WITH YOU THEY BUT THEY CAN POINT TO HAWAII.
I BROUGHT UP IN MY REMARKS THAT THERES BEEN A PROGRAM IN EFFECT STARTED IN MY AREA, NIU
VALLEY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, CALLED PONO CHOICE DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII. CURRICULUM
IS VERY CLEAR, THEY SAY THAT THE WHOLE PROGRAM IS TO PREVENT TEEN PREGNANCY. AND SEXUALLY
TRANSMITTED DISEASES. BUT THERE IS A COMPONENT IN THAT CURRICULUM WHICH SPEAKS TO HOMOSEXUAL
RELATIONS, VERY CLEARLY. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE OPT OUT POSITION, A LOT OF PARENTS
SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT GIVEN THAT OPT OUT. THEY DIDNT KNOW ABOUT THAT. D.O.E. DID BLESS
IT BECAUSE NOW, THERES GOING TO BE 30 SCHOOLS THAT WILL BE USING THAT CURRICULUM AT A TAXPAYER
COST OF A MILLION BUCKS. IT IS IN THERE. AND IT HAS BEEN IN THIS CASE SINCE 2011.
>> IT WAS THERE BEFORE. >> 2011. YES. I MEAN, THAT ITS WHAT PARENTS
WERE TALKING ABOUT. FOR LEGISLATORS, TO POOPOO THAT IDEA, OR SAY THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN,
WE HAVE THE D.O.E. AND B.O.E., I WOULD SAY LOOK AT THEIR PAST RECORD AND THINGS THAT
THEY HAVE DONE AND THE FACT THAT IN MANY PEOPLE HAVE FELT THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT. ITS A REAL ISSUE. >> THATS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THAT WILL NEED TO
BE ADDRESSED ABOUT ALLOWING PARENTS THE OPTION TO OPT OUT.
>> WHETHER ITS THERE OR NOT, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN FUTURE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THIS BILL. >> WELL IT DOES IN AFFECT BECAUSE WHAT YOURE
DOING NOW, YOU HAVE STATE SANCTIONING OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU DID NOT HAVE BEFORE.
BUT THE OTHER THING FROM MY STANDPOINT, LETS AGREE ON THIS. IF WE CAN. WE GOT KIDS THAT
CANT READ. WE HAVE KIDS THAT CANT DO MATH. MANY KIDS THAT DONT KNOW HISTORY OR GEOGRAPHY.
BUT AT 12 YEARS OLD, THEYRE GOING TO KNOW ALL KIND OF *** POSITIONS AND *** THINGS.
WHERE IS OUR PRIORITIES? >> IS THAT IN THE CURRICULUM YOU JUST SAW.
>> YES, IT WAS. YES, IT IS. >> BEFORE WE BELABOR THAT DEAD HORSE AGAIN,.
>> WEVE GOT A LOT OF DEAD HORSES. >> YES, WE DO.
I WOULD SAY THIS GOING BACK, I MEAN, WE DO NOT HAVE THIS AS PART OF THE CURRICULUM BASED
ON WHETHER OR NOT MARRIAGE IS LEGAL OR NOT BASED ON THIS BILL. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
YOURE TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO HELP PROMOTE BETTER EDUCATION FOR OUR KIDS, WHICH I THINK
EVERYBODY CAN AGREE ON. >> SURE.
>> AND YOU LOOK BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE BILL, WHICH IS TO BUILD HOUSEHOLDS
THAT HAVE SOLID FAMILIES WHERE PARENTS ARE LOVING, WHETHER THEYRE MOTHER AND A FATHER
OR MOTHER AND A MOTHER, WHAT HAVE YOU, BECAUSE THOSE FAMILIES ARE IN OUR COMMUNITIES RIGHT
NOW. THEYRE GOING TO CONTINUE IT BE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE SAME
BENEFITS AND TREATMENT AND RESPECT THAT ANY OTHER FAMILY HAS BECAUSE THATS WHATS GOING
TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE WHETHER OR NOT THEIR CHILDREN ARE RAISED WELL.
>> >>MALIA: LETS SWITCH THE FOCUS. LOOKING FORWARD,
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES NOW, WEVE COME THIS FAR ON THIS ISSUE. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT YOURE
GOING TO BE LOOKING AT IN YOUR COMMUNITIES? FATHER?
>> WELL, I THINK WE REALIZE THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO. IN TERM OF EDUCATING OUR
OWN PEOPLE REGARDING WHY WE STOOD SO STRONGLY AGAINST SAMESEX MARRIAGE. OUR OWN PEOPLE DONT
ALWAYS AGREE WITH US ON THIS ISSUE. >>MALIA: DO YOU FEEL THERE WILL BE SOMEWHAT
OF A BACKLASH IN TERMS OF SOME OF POSITIONS THAT THE CHURCHES HAVE TAKEN IN THIS? DO YOU
HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT, ABOUT SOME MEMBERS FEELING THAT THEY DIDNT WANT THE CHURCH TO
TAKE AS STRONG A STANCE? >> WEVE ALREADY RECEIVED SOME OF THAT BACKLASH,
CERTAINLY. I WOULDNT SAY A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE
IN OUR OWN CONGREGATIONS WHO STRONGLY DISAGREED WITH THE BISHOP TAKING THE POSITION THAT WE
HAVE TAKEN AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WITHIN OUR OWN CONGREGATION.
I THINK FOR US, ALL THE MORE REASON FOR US TO ARTICULATE OUR ETHIC IN A POSITIVE AN ENGAGING
WAY. THATS WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO. I THINK WERE WAY BEHIND IN TERMS OF DOING THAT. I
THINK NOT JUST ABOUT THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS, BUT ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE
HUMAN PERSON AND WHO WE ARE. >>MALIA: BISHOP, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT
THAT? >> THATS BEEN OUR PAST. THAT HAS BEEN PART
OF THE EPOSCOPAL CHURCHS STRUGGLE OVER LAST 20 YEARS. SO LESS SO NOW BECAUSE THAT IS PART
OF THE STRUGGLE OF TIME. I THINK RIGHT NOW, WE LOOK AHEAD, BECAUSE WEVE STRUGGLED WITH
INCLUDING WHOLE FAMILIES, BOTH, FOR ME, ITS A PASTORAL ISSUE. WHEN I HAVE SOMEONE NEEDING
ME WHEN IM IN CHURCH AND THEY SAY, MY DAUGHTER WANTS TO GET MARRIED, CAN IT FINALLY HAPPEN?
THEN ITS A PERSONAL PASTORAL ISSUE. SO THAT NOW, I THINK THE GROWING EDGE WOULD HAVE TO
BE IN TWO DIRECTIONS. ONE, THE CONTINUED TEACHING OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE IN A PERMANENT SEXUALLY
EXCLUSIVE RESPECTED, HONORED RELATIONSHIP. AND HOW DO WE HOLD UP THOSE FAMILIES, BUT
ALL FAMILIES, WITHIN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH, BUT I THINK ALSO, CALLING THOSE OF US OF FAITH
TO LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US. ISSUES OF HOMELESSNESS, ISSUE US OF POVERTY,
ECONOMIC JUSTICE, CLIMATE, THOSE OTHER ISSUES THAT PRESS UPON US AS PEOPLE OF GOD, HOLDING
THIS FRAGILE EARTH WITH OUR FAMILIES AROUND US, WITH THOSE ALL AROUND AND LOOKING BEYOND,
FOR US, THIS ONE ISSUE THAT GATHERED WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE AT THE CAPITOL.
I THINK. BUT ALSO, RESPECTING THOSE WHO DISAGREE THAT WHERE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER, WE GET ABOUT
GODS WORK TO CARE FOR THE BROKEN AND THE LOST AND THE POOR.
>>MALIA: TO THE POINT OF THIS BILL, THIS LAW, ARE THERE FAMILIES THAT YOU HAVE MINISTERED
TO THAT YOU BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL HELP. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>>MALIA: CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? THATS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WEVE GOT FROM THE CALLERS.
IF WE CAN ADDRESS THE IMPACT ON THE GAY COMMUNITY. >> FOLK WHO DID NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO
FLY TO ANOTHER STATE TO BE MARRIED, FAMILIES THAT I KNOW OF WHO ARE WAITING SO THEIR CHILDREN
CAN BE MARRIED IN THEIR CHURCHES. AND IT WAS MORE THAN JUST THE BLESSING AFTER A CIVIL
UNION. BUT THAT UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGEEL THATS GROWN FOR SOME OF OF THE PEOPLE. I HAVE
BEEN A PRIEST FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS. MARRIED FOR OVER 30 YEARS. ITS ENTIRE TIME I WAS A
PRIEST AND AS BISHOP, IVE HAD GAY AN LESBIANS IN MY PARISHES, FAMILIES CHILDREN, THEIR LIVES
NEVER AFFECTED MY MARRIAGE. THEYVE ADDED TO MY MARRIAGE. IVE SEEN THIS IN THEM, CARING
FOR ONE ANOTHER TO THE POINT OF DEATH. I KNOW PEOPLE WILL WANT TO GET MARRIED ON DECEMBER†2ND,
THEYLL BE WAITING FOR THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT AND I WILL HAVE PRIESTS WHO WILL PERFORM THE
WEDDINGS BECAUSE THEYRE PART OF OUR CHURCH FAMILY.
>>MALIA: AS A CHURCH MEMBER. >> HONESTLY BELIEVE IT.
>>MALIA: REPRESENTIVE LEE, ANY THOUGHTS IN TERM OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LIFE IN THE STATE
OF HAWAII. >> ABSOLUTELY. IN THE HEARING WE HERD FROM
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE, MANY COUPLES WHO HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS LOOKING FOR
OPPORTUNITY. I THINK YOURE RIGHT. DECEMBER†2ND, I EXPECT I THINK IVE ALREADY GOT FOUR OR FIVE
INVITATIONS. IM GOING TO HAVE TO SAY IM NOT GOING TO ANY BECAUSE IM GOING TO BE HE SELECTIVE.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, CHILDREN WILL LOOK AT THEIR PARENTS WHO SAY YOURE THE SAME AS EVERYONE
ELSES PARENTS IN MY CLASS AND NOT FACING THAT TYPE OF SEGREGATION AS THEY GROW UP. THERES
RECOGNITION THERES A TRUE FAMILY. >>MALIA: IT SEEMS WHAT IVE READ F. THIS NEW
POPE HAS A BIT OF A SOFTENING ON THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AT SOME
POINT IN THE FUTURE, CATHOLIC CHURCH MIGHT CHANGE THEIR POSITION THIS.
>> I THINK THAT ITS BEEN INTERESTING HOW PEOPLE HAVE REACTED TO THE HOLY FATHERS COMMENTS.
THEY REACTED ON TWO EXTREMES. THOSE WHO HAVE AN AGENDA IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE, HAVE REACTED
AND SAID, LOOK, HES OPENED DOORS. THIS IS EVERYTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE. ON THE OTHER
SIDE, THOSE WHO ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE HAVE SAID THINGS LIKE, SOMEBODY BETTER GET TO HIM.
HES CAUSING PROBLEMS. I THINK WHAT THE POPE IS REALLY DOING IS PRECISELY WHAT WERE DOING
HERE. HE IS SAYING, LETS TALK WITH EACH OTHER. LETS NOT TALK AT EACH OTHER. AND SO I THINK
THAT IS THE SORT OF TONE HES SETTING. NOW, LETS BE CLEAR. HE HAS NOT CHANGED ONE CHURCH
TEACHING. THE CHURCH TEACHING IS STILL WHAT IT IS, WHICH ITS A DIFFERENT TONE PERHAPS
AND THE EMPHASIS I THINK IS ON AS I SAID, ENGAGING OTHERS IN A CONVERSATION. WERE STILL
NOT GOING TO AGREE THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS MORAL FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT CERTAINLY, WE NEED
TO LISTEN TO ONE ANOTHER AND TALK TO ONE ANOTHER ABOUT THIS. AND I THINK THATS REALLY WHAT
HES SAYING ULTIMATELY. >>MALIA: LOOKING FORWARD, IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC
IMPACT, LETS CHANGE THE CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT. THERE WAS A QUESTION WHY WHEN CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS
DIDNT BENEFIT HAWAII ECONOMICALLY. WHY WILL MARRIAGE.
THE ANSWER IS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON MARRIAGE?
>> HEARING IN THE TESTIMONY, OVER OUR FIVE DAYS, 57 HOURS OF FOLKS COMING AND TALKING
ABOUT THEIR OWN STORIES, A LOT OF FOLKS DIDNT WANT TO GO THE ROUTE OF CIVIL UNIONS. THEY
WANTED TO WAIT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT WAS OPEN HALF MEASURE AND IT WAS KIND OF FOR THEM,
A SLAP IN THE FACE SAYING YOURE STILL NOT THE SAME. YOURE STILL NOT EQUAL. AND THATS
SOMETHING THAT I THINK WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE U.H. STUDY LOOKING AT ITS EFFECTS FROM
PAST FEW YEARS, LOOKING AHEAD. YOU HAVE $217†MILLION IN REVENUE COMING IN OVER THE NEXT 2 OR 3
YEARS BASED ON FACT THERES BEEN A LOT OF BUILT UP DRIVE TO GET MARRIED BY THIS COMMUNITIES
THAT HAS TO THIS POINT, BEEN PROHIBITED FROM DOING IT.
>> YOUR THOUGHT ECONOMICS. >> THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EXCITEMENT AND ACTIVITY
INITIALLY. THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IM FACING IS THE LACK OF GENUINE ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY IN THE STATE. THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY WHETHER THEY ARE GAY OR STRAIGHT, REPUBLICAN
OR DEMOCRAT. WERE NOT DOING OUR JOB. EVERY RANKING HAS COME OUT IN THE LAST 2 YEARS THATS
RANKED ON ECONOMIC VITALITY OR BUSINESS CLIMATE, HAS PUT US AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST. THATS
NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHAT WERE DOING BY ISSUES LIKE THIS, WE ARE DEFLECTING WHERE THE ISSUE
SHOULD BE. I WANTED TO SAY ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THESE BENEFITS. AS IT CAME UP IN THE
HEARINGS, I THINK WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE FEDERAL BENEFITS, 1,938 BENEFITS. WHICH
YOU CAN GET IF YOU GO TO ANOTHER STATE. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT THATS DIFFICULT THING, ALTHOUGH
MANY PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO OTHER STATES GET MARRIED ANYWAY. I LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY.
I THINK THATS TOO MANY FEDERAL BENEFITS. I THINK IF THE TAXES ARE TOO HIGH, THAT THATS
ITS PROBLEM IN THE STATE OF HAWAII. WERE BEING THE SECOND OR THIRD HIGHEST TAX STATE IN THE
NATION. I THINK THATS WHERE WE SHOULD PUT SOME OF OUR ENERGY. THE ISSUE NOW FROM MY
STANDPOINT SHOULD BE BEHIND US, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE MOVE ON. I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU.
THAT WE LOOK INTO HOMELESSNESS MORE, POVERTY MORE, ALL OF THESE OTHER ISSUES. BUT IF YOU
DONT HAVE AN ECONOMY, THAT TREATS EVERYBODY EQUALLY, OR WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, THEN YOUVE
GOT REAL PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD. THOSE PEOPLE THAT THINK WE COULDNT FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS
OF DETROIT OR GREECE, THEYRE FOOLING THEMSELVES. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST UNFUNDED LIABILITY OF
ANY STATE IN THE NATION OVER $25†BILLION. OUR PUBLIC PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING EVERY DAY
IN TERMSES OF RENT AND FOOD AND HEALTH CARE. AND ALL OF THESE THINGS. THATS THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE LEGISLATURE. >> I WOULD JOIN YOU ON ANOTHER PANEL ABOUT
ECONOMIC JUSTICE. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD.
>>MALIA: MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. MOVING ON. HERES A QUESTION FROM TERRY. DOES THE PANEL
FEEL THAT SINCE THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY IS SO DIVIDED ON THIS ISSUE, THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
SSM BASED IN RELIGION HAVE LESS WEIGHT? THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> RELIGION GENERALLY IN THE WEST AND IN THE UNITED STATES, PARTICULARLY, IS BECOMING LESS
IMPORTANT. WE ARE ENTERING A PHASE, I THINK, OF, YOU CAN GO TO EUROPE AND SEE EMPTY CHURCHES.
AND THE SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS ARE STRUGGLING WITH THEIR SPIRITUALITY AND THE RELIGION DIFFERENTLY
THAN PASTOR GENERATIONS. WHEN RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES CAN COME TOGETHER SHOW CIVIL DISCOURSE, WORK
TOGETHER IN A REASONABLE WAY FOR THE CAUSE OF GOOD AND JUSTICE, WE CAN ACTUALLY MODEL
TO THE WORLD A HEALTHIER, WHOLER WAY OF BEING. WERE NOT SERVED BY ONE ANOTHER STANDING ON
OPPOSITE SIDES AND YELLING SLOGANS. THIS COULD BE A MODEL WE COULD FIND A NEW WAY FORWARD.
I THINK WHATS HAPPENED TO SOME EXTENT WITH REGARD TO RELIGION IS THAT THE ISSUE OF COMPARTMENTIZATION
HAS OCCURRED. MANY PEOPLE HAVE CONSIDERED RELIGION TO SORT OF SOMETHING I DO WHEN I
HAVE A BABY, GET A BAPTISM OR FUNERAL OR SOCIOCASE LIKE WEDDING.
IT ISNT INTEGRATED INTO THE WHOLENESS OF YOUR LIFE. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THATS WHAT NEEDS
TO HAPPEN, THAT RELIGION AND FAITH BECOMES PART OF WHO I AM, THAT I DONT CHECK MY CONSCIENCE
AT THE DOOR, THAT FREEDOM MANY RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT FREEDOM OF WORSHIP ONLY. ITS ABOUT
SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT. >>MALIA: DO YOU SEE IN BENEFITS IN THIS LAW
HAVING PASSED? NOT THE OUTCOME THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WISHED FOR. IS THERE A SILVER LINING?
>> I DONT SEE ANY BENEFIT IN THE LAW BEING PASSED AS WHAT IS LEGISLATING AT LEGAL. WHAT
I DO SEE IS THAT IT CERTAINLY HAS POINTED OUT TO US THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO
IN TERMS OF AWARENESS. WITH OUR OWN FAITH COMMUNITY REGARDING ISSUES OF SEXUALITY AND
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. CERTAINLY. >>MALIA: OTHER THAN THE ECONOMIC BOOST THAT
IS EXPECTED, DO YOU SEE ANY BENEFITS FROM WHAT THE STATE WENT THROUGH THE LAST COUPLE
OF WEEKS. >> GOOD FOR THE LAWYERS BECAUSE OF THE MORE
LITIGIOUS ACTIONS. OTHER THAN THAT, NO. PEOPLE SAY HAWAII, THE ALOHA STATE, ARE THEY GOING
TO SAY, WE ARE THE SAMESEX MARRIAGE STATE? IS THAT GOING TO BE A MAJOR POINT? I WOULD
POINT OUT, AGAIN, THE RUSH WAS TO BEAT ILLINOIS. WHICH GOING TO BE WHAT, NEXT WEEK. THEYRE
GOING TO SIGN AND THEYLL BE THE 16TH STATE. THAT STILL MEANS THAT THE MAJORITY OF STATES
HAVENT ADOPTED THIS. AND OTHER STATES PUT FORWARD THIS IS WHAT WE WANT THE PUBLIC OR
WE WANT THE REST OF THE NATION AND THE REST OF THE WORLD TO LOOK AT.
I WOULD SAY ITS VERY NARROW IF WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT SAMESEX MARRIAGE.
>>MALIA: ALL ALMOST ONETHIRD OF THE COUNTRY, THAT HAS ADOPTED THIS. RIGHT? SO ITS NOT AS
IF HAWAII IS GOING TO, IF IM UNDERSTANDING YOUR POINT, IN TERMS OF IDENTITY.
>> WERE GLAD TO BE FIRST AS WE WERE WITH ABORTION AND GENERAL EXCISE TAX, AS WE WE WERE WITH
THE SINGLE STATEWIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PREPAID HEALTH CARE. HE DIDNT MAKE IT FIRST. THE FACT
THAT WEVE BEEN DEBATING THIS AND DISCUSSING THIS FOR 20 YEARS, I THINK INDICATES THAT,
AGAIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM SITTING DOWN WITH PEOPLE AND I THINK THATS WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
WE SHOULD TALK AND WE SHOULD EXCHANGE OUR VIEWS. MY PROBLEM COMES WHEN YOU START TALKING
ABOUT THE TATE USING FORCE TO CHANGE PEOPLES VIEWS OR MAKE THEM DO THINGS THAT THEY DONT
WANT TO DO. >>MALIA: WERE STARTSING TO RUN OUT OF TIME.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET EVERYONES THOUGHTS HERE. REPRESENTATIVE LEE, ANY OTHER
POINTS THAT EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC SHOULD AB WARE OF IN LOOKING FOR ON THIS TOPIC?
>> I DO THINK YOUD ASKED EARLIER ABOUT WHATS GOOD COMING OUT OF THIS. BESIDE THE BENEFITS
TO SAME SEX COUPLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I DO THINK THE ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME DURING
THE HEARING, I THINK IT WAS DAY FOUR, WAS THERE WAS A LADY TESTIFIED, SHE GOT UP AND
SAID, I SUBMITTED MY TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION. FOUR DAYS EARLIER. SHE CHANGED HER MIND. AND
SAID, IM CHANGING MY COMMENTS TO COMMENTS. MEANING SHE IS NOT TAKING A POSITION. BECAUSE
SHE LOOKED AT THE CROWD AND THE FOLKS WEARING THEIR COLORED LEIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I
DIDNT REALIZE YOU DONT GET SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU DONT GET MEDICARE. YOURE A FAMILY. YOU
HAVE KIDS. I DIDNT REALIZE YOUR KIDS GO TO PROBABLY THE SAME SCHOOL MY KIDS DO. BRINGING
UNDERSTANDING IF BOTH SIDES ON THE RELIGIOUS VALUES AND BELIEFS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO SOME
AND THE FAMILIES THAT ARE OUT THERE WHO JUST WANT TO BE FAMILIES, TREATED LIKE EVERYBODY
ELSE. FANTASTIC BECAUSE THE BILL IS DONE. WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. BUT PUTTING OURSELFS
IN OTHER SHOES AND UNDERSTANDING THEIR ISSUES I THINK IS WHAT ULTIMATELY BRINGS US TOGETHER.
>>MALIA: READING LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, THERE IS A LOT OF ANGER ABOUT THIS. THE COMMENTS
THAT HAVE COME IN. WHAT WOULD YOU COUNSEL THOSE FOR WHOM THIS WAS NOT THE OUTCOME THAT
THEY WANTED. WHAT WITH WOULD BE YOUR THOUGHTS. >> WHAT WEVE DONE TONIGHT IS WHAT YOU DO.
YOU TALK. YOU ENGAGE HUMAN BEINGS. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WERE GOING TO DISAGREE. BUT YOU STRUGGLE
WITH THE WHAT YOURE DISAGREEING ABOUT, YOU TREAT ONE ANOTHER WITH RESPECT. YOU TREAT
YOUR BROTHER AND SISTER AS IF THEY WERE PART OF YOUR FAMILY. AND YOU LIVE TOGETHER AS BEST
YOU CAN. YOU MAKE THINGS PONO. AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT ANGER, WITHOUT RANCHOR
AND WITHOUT DEMONIZES. THERE ARE OTHER PLACES WHERE WE CAN WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF
WHOLE. >> I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE BISHOP. I WE
MIGHT DISAGREE A LITTLE IS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, PASTORAL OUTREACH FOR US WOULD INVOLVE ALSO
A CHALLENGE TO A PERSON WHO WAS ORIENTED THAT WAY TO LOOK AT THEIR BEHAVIOR. BUT CERTAINLY,
THERE ARE MANY ISSUES THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MUTUALLY AS CHURCHES, AND JUST AS PEOPLE
IN GENERAL THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS. >>MALIA: AND MOVE ON TO THE OTHER ISSUE. AFFECTING
US ALL. THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US HERE TONIGHT. VERY INTERESTING. NEXT WEEK ON INSIGHTS,
FOR SOME WITH CATASTROPHIC ILLNESSES OR FACING THE END OF THEIR LIVES, IDEA OF DYING ON THEIR
OWN TERMS IS COMFORTING. ONLY A FEW STATE AS LAU SO CALLED DEATH WITH DIGNITY. IN HAWAII,
THERE HAVE BEEN REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO PASS LAW ALLOWS A PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE BUT
NONE HAVE PASSED. PROPONENTS SAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DICTATE HOW WE DIE AND OPPONENTS CALL IT MANSLAUGHTER. ON THE NEXT INSIGHTS ON PBS
HAWAII, SHOULD WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW WE DIE? THATS NEXT TIME ON INSIGHTS ON
OPINIONS HAWAII. IM MALIA MATTOCH. A HUI HO.