Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:44:47 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: Testimony for Senate Judiciary Committee, February 3, 1997: 2 of 2 Aloha ahi ahi kakou. Following please find testimonies presented to the Hawai`i Senate Judiciary Committee relating to same-gender marriage from: Carolyn Golojuch, Ward Stewart and George Vye, Al Habib, Kealapua Haina, Ron Hoklund, Bettina Dowdle, Elaine Eredia, Tony Hill, Wilfred Ah Quin Joseph Melillo, Chris Miura and Fred Rainville and Martin Rice <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> In opposition to: S.B. 36, 97, 98, 912, 795, 1800, H.B. 117, 118 HD1 Dear Senator: Cardinal Juan Fresnos of Chile said: "Whosoever stands up for human rights stands up for the rights of God." Now is the time to stand up for the rights of a group of American citizens who would be denied equal human rights if S.B. 36, 97, 98, 912, 1800 or H.B. 117 and 118 were passed. Only SB 795 gives our gay community anything close to equality under the law. In the numerous hearings on bills, both in the House and the Senate, dealing with the human rights of our gay community, we continue to hear about how person after person wants to deny the gay community human rights. I wish to point out that discrimination and oppression occur anytime one group of people are denied rights that another group of people in the same society enjoy as a matter of fact. This is the situation with heterosexuals and homosexuals in Hawaii. I, as a heterosexual, enjoy the privileges of matrimony, whereas, homosexuals are denied the same privileges. Any bill that does not afford all citizens equal rights under the law with due process, is an act of oppression and discrimination. As a School of Social Work grad student, I have learnt that social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, political belief or mental or physical disability. I prevail on you to ensure that sexual orientation is not used to deny the freedom to marry from our gay community. Social injustice is not to be confused with separate but equal. If it's not equal, then, it's not justice. Any vote with reservation is reason to abstain from voting, in order to ensure that human rights are not violated. In 1868, the majority Republicans, proposed the U. S. Constitutional 14th Amendment to help create a safe environment by securing rights for others. The heart of the amendment says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Hawaii has an opportunity to lead the way to full and complete equal rights for all citizens. I have a dream that my gay son will enjoy the same rights that my husband and I do as heterosexuals. Marriage is a right as it was defined as such when the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage legal in the late 1960's. Remember Cardinal Juan Fresnos' words, "Whosoever stands up for human rights, stands up for the rights of God." Sincerely, Carolyn Martinez Golojuch PFLAG Oahu Chapter President PFLAG National Board of Directors <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Ward Stewart & George Vye Honolulu, Hawaii January 30, 1997 The Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting on Monday, February 3, 1997 In the matter of Same-Gender marriage Aloha Senator Matsunaga and committee members -- In the matter of the bills for a constitutional amendment to "prevent" same-gender marriage and another bill to offer a slim few of the benefits and protections of marriage. Please vote no on the constitutional amendments. Their purpose, to "prevent" same-gender marriage will not be achieved, such law, designed to disadvantage a minority for no demonstrable civic purpose save animus, has been tried before in Mississippi and Alabama -- is that where we wish to see Hawaii placed? Do we really wish to see Hawaii fighting to exclude citizens from the equal protections of the law? To exclude citizens from inclusion under the bill of rights? This was their purpose in the old South and more recently in Colorado -- all such measures have, to the shame of their authors, been defeated, utterly! We two have been together now for over forty years. We have, during our lives, paid in taxes for about one hundred years, state, federal and local. Mr Stewart is a Korean Veteran. He is a registered nurse and spent the last ten years of his career working with the street psychotics on the Bowery in New York City. We have contributed to our society and are, we feel, entitled to equality in it. As to the "domestic partnership" proposals, they are clearly trying to achieve the "separate but equal" status that was a comfort to the racists who wrote Plessy v. Ferguson. From these ideas we derived nearly a century of American Apartheid. Plessy is gone, separate but equal was an illusion, a malicious illusion, dispelled by Brown v Board. To see it revived here in Hawaii is a sadness -- here where the racial preoccupations of so much of the mainland have faded to insignificance and aloha, this must surely be regarded as a terrible step backward. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that Aloha is more than a tourist trapping slogan - it is real and, in the spirit of this aloha, we can light a candle of tolerance, of ohana, of love and caring which may be seen even in the dark places of the world. We CAN get along, we CAN be family. Ward Stewart George Vye <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Al Habib Honolulu, HI January 18, 1996 Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the matter ofSame-Gender Marriage Senate Sergeant at Arms Fax 586 6659 We have heard often in this debate that protection of children is the paramount objective of these hearings. I share that laudable concern, but from a slightly different angle. My concern is with that large number of children who are growing up to be homosexual. These unhappy children are told from early youth that the feelings of their hearts make them something less than human; something less than decent. Thery are told that they are despised by the rest of the world, despised by God, unfit to serve their country in the armed forces. They are told by at least one of our fellow petitioners that they have, "dirty blood." They are told that they will have no place in the sun, no hope for the future. I have a great wish to protect these children from the hate and bigotry that marks so much of this debate. I have a wish to see these children able to grow up healthy and with an opportunity to aspire to the good things of this life. I wish them to be able to know the love that should be theirs. I wish to see them spared the self-hatred offered them by cruel and narrow minded fundamentalists. That these people should in 1997 identify children as "morally unfit" is monstrous, cruel and, in my firm opinion, immoral! Mahalo, Alex Habib <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Kealapua Haina Pearl City, Hawai'i January 31, 1997 Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, February 3, 1997 Aloha Senators. Please leave this matter in the courts where it belongs. The Constitutional Amendment which is being urged on you would restrict Hawai'ians on who and how they may love, is corrosive to the very fabric of Hawai'i. Here, in the land of Aloha and acceptance for all, we have a small group of Grundys who would forbid love that does not meet their criteria. This is not a Hawai'ian idea, not a Hawai'ian way of governing. Here where we are as mixed as any population in the world we must set an example of Aloha. We are symbols of hope in Bosnia, in Israel, in Ceylon, in Somalia, in India, in Lebanon. All over the world, where hatred and fear of one's neighbors has been allowed to create terrible misery and suffering there must be an example to show that people of different races, different religions, different families can get along. Do not spoil this paradise. Do not extinguish this hope. Kealapua <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Ron Hokland Honolulu, Hawaii January 30, 1997 Testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee February 3d RE: Same-gender Marriage Aloha Chairman Matsunaga -- We are informed that the recognition of the dignity of these life arrangements will destroy the American Family. On the contrary such recognition will enrich our institution of family, will increase its colors and beauty. There is room in the heart of the almighty for all the creatures of his creation. More room than these mischievous people imagine. These bills and amendments would diminish us all, deprive us of much that is fine and loving. Narrow our vision. Chill our hearts. They are wrong and should not become law here in Hawaii. <><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><><><><><><><><><><> Bettina Dowdle Honolulu, Hawaii January 30, 1997 Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Re: The Proposed Constitutional Amendments Meeting on Monday, February 23, 1997 Fax: 586 7125 Aloha Friends, We were told at the hearings two years ago that the fires in California were a warning from the deity. I am sure that today we will hear that immorality has caused the recent floods in the Waianae and in naughty California. This stuff is offered us by the same social scientists who have told us that Lesbians are seventeen times more likely to die in traffic accidents than are straight women. This is offered by the same theologues who suggest that AIDS is God's judgement on wicked homosexuals without explaining why Lesbians have such low rates of infection. Can God's aim be that poor? Make no mistake, this is a debate about hatred, invidious discrimination, cruel bigotry and irrational homophobia. There can be no compelling state interest in disenfranchising perhaps ten percent of its population. There is, however, a sure and compelling state interest in seeking a kinder, gentler America. A more moral America. Thank you Bettina Dowdle <><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, February 3, 1997 AS constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage Fax to: 586-6659 Aloha Chairman Matsunaga, I wish to speak strongly about the prospect of a constitutional amendment in this matter. It would represent a step backwards for women here is Hawaii. It is intended as an attack on homosexuals but does great harm to women and children as a by-product. Setting procreation as the chief purpose of marriage is a simply stupid notion. Are we to be changed to the Muslim world (fully God-fearing) where failure to bear children is grounds for divorce. Indeed, failure to bear sons will do the trick. Dumb! Will the children of Gay or Lesbian couples be less than the children of heterosexual couples. Will they be forced to live lives of shame and disgrace. We have, I hope, moved beyond the old ideas of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children. We have no more bastards in our lives except for some of the politicians, some of the ministers. We have grown past that notion and past the idea that Gays and Lesbians are inherently wicked people. This is 1997 and society is improving itself. This amendment would be a step backward. Do not vote it in! Thank you Ms Elaine Eredia Honolulu <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Tony Hill Honolulu, Hawaii January 31, 1997 The Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony for the hearing of Monday, Feb Third Aloha Friends, I was disheartened to hear of a general attack from the legislatures directed at the courts; "irresponsible, unrealistic, un-comprehending of the law, unaware of the true nature of the making law and by so doing ignore the 'will of the people.'" This must ring false here where even moderately long memories remember that the 'will of the people' put a substantial number of our fellow citizens in concentration camps until the Supreme Court in Washington, 'made law' and released them. It is not only Japanese Americans who remember these things, who care about living in a republic. That episode was in the '40s -- again in the 60s this same ugly stuff was heard far and wide as the states of the American South, fighting to preserve American Apartheid said exactly the same things about Black Americans as they pressed for freedom, as they walked in Montgomery; as they died in Mississippi. These episodes of hatefulness have cast a shadow of shame over Washington and over the American South. Now, many years later, we hear the same hatefulness as the homophobes and hate-mongers at 'Hawaii's Future Today, have their say, these voices insist that race and sexual orientation are entirely separate issues -- well, I am Popolo and Gay and I have been called 'nigger' and I have been called 'faggot' --- Let me assure you that being so labeled by the hateful feels just exactly the same, no matter who says it! "The very purpose of a bill of rights is to withdraw certain subjects from . . . political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities." Justice Robert Jackson 1943 Civil rights, human rights, are part of our 'inalienable' heritage and are meant to be kept above the contentious political arena; are not to be bargained away by venal politicians and bigoted lawyers.. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Wilfred AhQuin Honolulu, Hawaii January 30, 1997 Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee February 3, 1997 In Re: Senate Bills relating to marriage Aloha Friends, Recent studies, cited with intense cries of AHA! suggest that the percentage of homosexuals in our population is less than the ten percent in Kinsey's work. First, I disagree with most of these "studies." I maintain that the majority of them are biased in method and absolutely biased in preconceptions of the studiers. However, I would suggest that the question is irrelevant. No matter how large or small the number may be the questions of equity, fairness, and morality remain. The question of choice is also finally irrelevant. Since only a relatively few people "choose" to be Mormons are we then to deny them their civil rights. If they are born Mormons, does that matter? Shall they have less freedom because there are fewer of them than there are Catholics? Certainly not! If the absurd figure of one percent is allowed to stand we still have two million homosexual American citizens. Twice the population of the state of Hawaii. Joseph Melillo Pearl City, Hawaii January 31, 1997 Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Re: The Same Gender Marriage Question Monday, February 3d Senate Sergeant at Arms Fax 586 6659 Aloha Friends, While some "Christian" groups claim to be promoting what they choose to call family values; my family supports the real family values of integrity, honesty and unconditional love. This issue needs dialogue and understanding, not hostile rhetoric. Rigid, fundamentalist thinking will not solve this dilemma. It's time to call for an end to the violence, harassment, discrimination, and even murder which is an unfortunate reality of life for gay and lesbian people. Hawaii, the capital of Aloha deserves no less. The proposed amendment to prevent such marriage is mischievous and its' effects will be destructive. This matter is before the courts and thrusting so ill-conceived a measure into the considerations is a folly. It is an open invitation to the kind of repressive things we have been heard from Oregon and Colorado: and less recently from Mississippi and Alabama. It will bring shame to Hawaii as the news of these hateful voices in paradise is broadcast throughout our nation. Thank You <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Ms Chris Miura Aiea, Hawaii January 31, 1997 Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, February Third Re: Bills and amendments relating to same gender marriage Aloha Friends Here, where historically love and acceptance have been extended to ALL members of the family, these measures would enforce a narrow, chilling version. This exclusive family is hardly the ohana of Hawaii, hardly a model for today. You have been asked to tamper with the state constitution at the behest of the "Moral Majority". These irresponsible people are neither. It is true that the bible (Leviticus 20:9) tells us that those who love persons of the same-sex are to be "put to death." In the same chapter we find that adultery is punishable by death. In Exodus (31:14) we find that working on the Sabbath is a capital crime. In Judges (6:31) we are told that death awaits those who seek to save Baal. Marital infidelity, Huli-Huli chicken on a Sunday, and defending Pele or dancing Hula. All are capital crimes. Who will be the next to be condemned. The fundamentalists tell us that this stuff is the word of God Given and that we may not pick and chose. It is clear that they are doing just that while they tell me that the rest of us are immoral and damned if we do likewise. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. There is room in our anuenue for more than one color. More love than these narrow people know of. In our fathers house there are many mansions, beauties undreamt of by these narrow-minded people. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Martin Rice and Fred Rainville (12th House District, 6th Senatorial District) The Senate Judiciary Committee State Capitol Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813 January 30, 1997 Testimony in strong OPPOSITION to: SB 36, SB 97, SB 98, SB 795, SB 912, SB 1800, HB 117 & HB 118 HD1 ____________________________________________________________________________ Aloha kakahiaka kakou Senators. Mahalo nui loa for taking the time to allow *ALL* of the citizens of Hawai`i, whether equal or unequal, the opportunity to express their concerns about the extension of civil rights. My name is Martin Rice and I have lived on Kaua`i for 17 years with Fred Rainville, my partner of 24 years. I am the third generation of my family to have had the honor to reside and work among the wonderful people of Hawai`i. Fred served two hitches in the United States Navy during the Viet Nam era, during which time I served two tours of duty in Viet Nam. I have read all eight of the bills before this committee, and despite all of the hard work and sincere efforts that you and other members of the legislature have made, Fred and I urge you to disregard all of them for several different reasons, thereby resisting the call for a constitutional amendment as well as the attempts to negotiate away our civil rights, before they are even obtainable. First and foremost, the eight bills are inherantly discriminatory, and can be broken down into two main segments. The first: Senate Bills 36, 97, 912, part of 1800 and House Bill 117, being those bills calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage in terms of one man and one woman. The notion that either Fred or I would be forced to undergo physical mutalation in the form of a sex-change operation just to be eligible for the civil rights as bestowed upon any other citizen of this state is as absurd as it is barbaric. But that would be our option, our only option, for the true security of possessing the same rights as other citizens if any one of these bills became law. Further on this note, if any of these aforementioned bills were to make it to the ballot for a vote, do you think that the women of Hawai`i would be willing to jeopardize their equal protection based on gender just to deny some other people the civil rights enjoyed by a vast majority of Hawai`i's citizens? That's what would come into play if any of these amendments were successful: two constitutional princples at distinct odds with each other, and yet still another protracted court battle. The second group of bills, i.e., Senate Bills 98, 795, part of 1800 and House Bill 118 HD 1) acknowledges by their existence, and by either previous passage in the House, or introduction by the various Senators, that a class of Hawai`i's citizens are, indeed, strangers to its laws (to paraphrase the Supreme Court decision in Evans v. Romer). Each of these bills attemtps to bestow limited rights in the guise of progress, and not full legal benefits as enjoyed by other citizens of Hawai`i. These four bills, in some way, also not only perpetuate legal discrimination against same-gendered couples, but find other groups of people to exclude based on age, heterosexual orientation and/or potential marital status. In analyzing all eight of these bills, Fred and I realized that the reason that so much energy has been devoted by the legislature trying to resolve this issue is that the *focus* of the legislation has been considerably off-target. Instead of trying to decide which set of rights what group may or may not enjoy, the focus in this issue should be the continuing protection of previously established rights. We're speaking specifically here of the rights of the religious institutions in this state. Some of the religious institutions have had a longer history of discrimination than has the state of Hawai`i. Those religious institutions that have had the opportunity to practice their peculiar forms of discrimination should be reassured that they may continue to do so, knowing that they will not be impugned if they do continue. However, for those churches that do discriminate on the basis of gender when bestowing the sacrament of marriage, Fred and I would like to suggest the following: 1) Those religious institutions that do discriminate should only be allowed to issue a certificate of the sacrament of marriage, or similar wording. 2) The couples that do get married in such institutions would then able to take their certificate to the Department of Health to recieve a civil contract of marriage, which would form the legal bond. 3) For those religious institutions that do not discriminate, they would be allowed to issue both the certificate of the sacrament of marriage, or similar wording, and simultaneously be allowed to issue the civil contract of marriage. In this way everyone's major interests are attended to. The individual churches would still be allowed to marry those couples that fit that definition according to their own dogma. The state, and hence the legislature, would be free of this issue, while ensuring that all couples who wish to be married, can be married, and enjoy the subsequent civil rights and benefits, regardless of gender, and that full civil rights can be bestowed on same-gendered couples. The issue is simple here. You need to move all of the benefits obtainable by the issuance of a marriage license to this side of marriage, or you have to let the citizens of this state, *ALL* of the citizens, enter into marriage. Mahalo for you time. ~~pau~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I just wish more of my fellow queers would come out sometimes. It's nice out here." --Elton John ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~