Dialog; Same-Sex Marriage

You Good evening and welcome to

dialogue on Hawaii public television coming to you live from Manoa, Oahu I'm Leslie Wilcox the rest of the nation is watching what we do in Hawaii with a highly controversial issue more than watching We've got some groups of vowing to boycott Hawaii as a vacation destination If we ban same -sex marriages and we have others threatening to withhold their business if we don't ban same -sex marriages Now should we become the first state in the country to legalize marriage between man and woman and woman? That's what we'd like you to consider for the next hour of live television And we invite you to call in with your questions and comments for our guests now the trigger for the intense community debate now going on Was a lawsuit filed here on behalf of three same -sex couples the state Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same -sex couples from Marrying is sex discrimination It ordered the case back to the lower court for a trial to give the state a chance to present Compelling reasons to support its position that it has compelling reasons for banning same -sex marriages Now that trial is not any

time soon April of next year is when it's scheduled meantime the state legislature is in session and Lawmakers seem inclined to try to keep the ban in effect one of our guests who does not want to see that is Dan Foley he is an attorney in private practice who filed that lawsuit on behalf of three homosexual couples He's been involved in a number of high -profile civil rights cases in Hawaii among them prison reform The Camp Smith cross case the challenge of the Good Friday holiday and the whistleblower case against the state sheriff's office Christina Eubeline is a state tax policy analyst who's lived in Hawaii for 28 years She's a lesbian involved in a committed relationship In fact the couple considers itself married by the Quakers, but of course that has no legal weight Christina is not one of the individuals who filed suit but supports the suit and is troubled that some in our community Don't believe she has the same rights as they do to choose a partner And there's also the important matter of a child and we'll get to that later

the Reverend Layton Zimmer is with us from Waaluku Maui and he's from the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd He thinks same -sex marriage should be allowed as a matter of law Let the religious side of it be fought in temples and churches He says another man of the cloth is here with a different opinion This is the Reverend Ron Arnold the senior pastor of Kaimuki Christian Church He asks you not to write him off as a homophobe or a gay basher And he says he wants lawmakers to do the politically incorrect thing and uphold the ban on same -sex marriages And speaking of lawmakers, State House Representative Dave Stegmeier is here a Democrat from the Hawaii Kai area He's one of 34 house members who voted yes on a bill to uphold the ban on same -sex marriages 17 voted against the bill and I'd like to thank Representative Stegmeier who is also chair of the House's Economic Development and Business Committee for agreeing to come after House Judiciary Chairman Terrence Tom who introduced the bill Agree to

be here and then cancelled In fact Tom's office cancelled twice that apparently thought this program would be last Friday and called last week to say Mr Tom was sick and then it called This week and said there are personal reasons that Mr. Tom cannot be here tonight too bad He can't be here to explain the bill he introduced number of other House representatives also declined our invitation to talk tonight about their vote Also with us tonight Deputy State Attorney General Steven Michaels is here He's scheduled to be Mr. Foley's combatant in circuit court representing the state government in that trial on the issue And the issue is we'll be asking him what the state's compelling interest is in keeping same -sex couples from marrying again This is our viewers program you ask the question just call them in to our volunteers from the Alpha Delta Kappa Chapter and they'll get them over to me our number is 9 5 5 7 8 neighbor Islanders Please call us collect 9 5 5 sign language interpreter is Loretta McDonald

and Dialogue is simulcast on AMN FM radio Hawaii Public Radio ki fo am 1380 and Kipo 89 .3 now as I wait for your questions and the first two calls have come in now Like to begin by asking the attorney for our state government Why is it so important for the state to keep gays and lesbians from marrying? Well, there's really two answers to that question and one is very easy for me to give and the other is a little more complicated And I'll give the first one now to get the show rolling a little bit The Attorney General is charged with enforcing the statutes of Hawaii and unless there is a situation where a statute is so clearly Unconstitutional that there is no reasonable debate about it It is our job as officers of the Attorney General's office to stand behind those laws and to defend them in court This is such a case Every single jurisdiction in the United States has a prohibition on same -sex couples being Recognized as married couples under the laws of their states Hawaii

would be the first jurisdiction in the nation would be the first jurisdiction in the world to have same -sex marriage if our state court held that our state statutes as Written are illegal our office is here defending this statute because there are good Colorable arguments and by colorable that means arguments that we can make in court that we believe in as lawyers and we think have support in fact and in law For the constitutionality of the present law I'll get into those in a few minutes But just to emphasize what our role is not to pick and choose which laws to defend and which laws not to defend We have lots of controversial laws in our state dealing with least -to -feet conversion dealing with Right -in voting good Friday Firearms legislation if the the legislature cooperates with our president agenda and all those will be challenged or have been challenged And it's not our job to pick and choose nor would the public want the Attorney General a single unelected person to decide what the law is by basically answering Mr. Foley suit and agreeing that the

law is unconstitutional Okay, so you don't decide what's right. You just support the law. We do obviously there are going to be cases then there There have been cases and there certainly will be in the future when a law is so clearly unconstitutional so clearly Inappropriate under the precedence that the the Supreme Court of our state or the Supreme Court of the United States has laid down That we will not defend that statute But this isn't that kind of a law because we have an opinion by the Supreme Court that doesn't in fact invalidate our law And if you look at it, it's a very Internally contradictory opinion it reflects a deeply divided court and really our perspective on this is the court Really did want to see a public airing of this issue. They wanted to see what the dialogue would be with the legislature They wanted to see what the state's particularized reasons would be And they wanted to have a trial court look carefully at that and they wanted to have another chance to look at this case So what are your compelling interests in keeping the ban in effect?

Well, there are a number of them and I think to frame those these interests It's important to understand how our office can see is of what marriage is about and what this case is about and what it's not about This case is not about whether people Of same -sex couples can have committed relationships There is no prohibition in hawaii law and of a same -sex couple having a committed relationship There is no nothing in hawaii law as it's now written It says that a church cannot recognize and solemnize and consecrate that relationship through what it calls a marriage what we have once you strip away the emotions and strip away the the symbolic Aspect to it is a set of laws. They really subsidize certain kinds of relationships What the marital laws do they in some senses? They make it make you worse off the tax laws in particular if you get married if depending on how your income is structured you're worse off But in other respects the state does stand over the marital relationship. It regulates it

It manages it and probably the most important Feature of it is it makes it hard to get out of and that Structure of regulation is a subsidy for that relationship and When you look at what the general law is on state subsidies the state should be very free in terms of using its ability to cast its resources about to subsidize Social interaction so your objection is not morality. It is purely financial. It's not it's not a financial one It's whether it's appropriate for the court for a court of unelected judges to Radically change the law of domestic relations of our state set it in opposition to the law of 49 other states Now we will in the course of our trial that's coming up We will put on evidence and we will advance reasons For the law as it now stands and in some regard these are Reasons that dovetail with the

bill that representative tom is introduced in which passed by a two -in -one margin in the house our position fundamentally is that the marital relationship is there at a basic level for the the protection and for the recognition that Children born of their biological parents all else being equal controlling for every single thing that you could possibly control for in an Anacolitical study of it all things being equal those children are best raised by their biological parents Our position will not be and has not been that adoptive parents cannot be very good parents or that biological parents Just because they're biological are Automatically better there are many many biological parents that shouldn't have children in the first place or by their conduct demonstrate that But nonetheless when you look at everything else being equal. There's a real interest there We also

have a civil liberties interest Hawaii does not invade the marital bedroom and inspect People when they apply for a marriage license are you indeed fertile? you indeed capable of carrying a child to term are you indeed capable of having children as between you? But it is an undeniable fact that same -sex couples cannot have children as between them and in terms of effectuating the state's goals of Subsidizing a particular relationship that the state does deem to be all else being equal a model for the rearing of children We submit that that's an appropriate. That's an appropriate Response there obviously a corner of the envelope problems. I call them Delt with but as a matter of fact that's the basic let's get to the corner of the and perhaps the mr. Foley can Tell you what he thinks some of the problems with that are I take it you don't agree with The Supreme Court found sex discrimination found the same sort of discrimination based on sex the the US Supreme Court in 1967 found in

banning The the prohibitions on interracial marriage in the California Supreme Court did 20 years earlier The reason why this is a civil rights case It's not just because there's a marriage license at issue It's that marriage license conditions many benefits in the areas employment Health insurance property rights probate victim rights and gay and lesbian couples are denied these rights Because they're denied the marriage license As far as the compelling state interest or purported compelling state interest of children One of the reasons why we file this case to allow children of same -sex couples to have the same benefits Children have of opposite sex couples that have marriage licenses and by not by denying the benefits to same -sex couples You're in fact punishing their children for having different types of parents Representative Stegmeyer you voted for the bill you're on the same side as mr. Michaels But I understand there are questions now as to whether this bill Is what legal scholars would consider capable of meeting judges

Expectations and so there is interest in the legislature and moving over to a bill for a constitutional amendment To reach the same goal. What's happening at the legislature? I? Believe that the judiciary committee on the house side has chosen Not to pass that bill out so that we're left with one vehicle on the Senate side, and they are Deliberating about that as well as the bill that we passed What do you think of the arguments the state is raising you just heard mr. Michaels that lay out some of the things He'll be saying in court. Yeah, I Guess I wouldn't be able to to repeat in the same legalistic way his his arguments and Really, I'm speaking for myself. I can't even speak for the other Proponents of the bill or those who voted against the bill, but for me it was relatively I've fret a lot about these controversial

issues, especially when civil rights are are to be involved and I This one was relatively easy for me And primarily because I was familiar with the definition of marriage from for the last 47 years it's been the same one and People with whom I talked almost all the time had shared that same definition, which is that it's between two people one woman and one man I also Felt that in terms of Policymaking that I had an obligation to look at the ramifications of of a Change such a radical change in our marital law at a time when this very fundamental Institution of our society is is under great stress and Literally 50 % of our Marriages are ending in divorce. I just felt

that it would be inappropriate to Further risk the erosion of this very fundamental Institution and relationship in our society all right well Christine Christine has been listening to that And he's basically saying he wouldn't acknowledge any Committed relationship between you and your partner as as a legal binding relationship Well, it bothers me not at all whether he recognizes it or not But bothers me as a suggestion that it is through a legal marriage only that children can be raised properly or Two adults can relate in any significant fashion I Interpret the statistics quite differently If 50 % of the married couples find themselves unable to remain in a committed relationship This means that perhaps the definition of marriage ought to be more inclusive as opposed to less inclusive Now you have a special interest when it comes to children because there is a

child in your home a nine -year -old That's correct. We have a nine -year -old daughter and part of our interest in the Supreme Court case and part of our interest in the issue at all has to do with her Protection has to do whether in fact we are able to transfer property to her when appropriate when whether we are able to See our wishes carried forward when and if she should happen to be hospitalized Our concern has to do with whether in fact she is taken care of in the same ways that the children of Heterosexually married couples are This matters a lot to us. You just to explain this this child was your your partner gave birth to the to this child as a result of artificial insemination, that's correct, so This is your partner's daughter and you met your partner after the daughter was born. That's correct That's correct. Teya was Teya's our daughter's name. Teya was five years

old when I met Denae and Teya was present at the wedding and in fact Teya's donor was present at the wedding as well. So you're saying you would like a legal support system for your daughter as Heterosexual think that's entirely appropriate We have the same concerns about how she grows up and how she is recognized by the state as any other couple would have and To deny her those rights simply because of my relationship with my partner is entirely inappropriate I don't see the state's interest in dividing my daughter from me or dividing my ability to protect her You know We can get very advanced in talking about this, but I think many people say But is it right people are still saying is homosexual right and should we make law around it to to To support it and we look often to the church for answers And I tell you it is not possible to get one clear answer from the church on this we have to A father a priest and a pastor here with different opinions Would you please

explain to us what your beliefs are? Let's start with you father. Well, thank you I I come at this from several different angles one I'm the parent of four adopted children all of my children are adopted and I would resent the Daylights out of any law that said that I could not because they were adopted treat them as as The children of a natural biological union It would distress me because now I have six grandchildren and Our whole life is going on It seems to me that the the the position of the state in this is is over simplistic it leads out leaves out all of the areas of of of health of The building up of a state not simply the passing on of it that that a Couple committed to each other no matter what the the sexual orientation of the partners is a stable Stabilizing unit in society This is our bulwark against promiscuity against prostitution against all of the

things that people very often in the straight world complain about and and Criticize in the gay world and and here there is tremendous opportunity to to to make strides for the Betterment of all of society it would seem to me as well as the strengthening of of love unions between committed people and For some reason the legislature wants to to back off on this I understand it's tough to be on the cutting edge But I'm proud of our state for for being out there on the cutting edge Do your parishioners agree with your point of view and does the Episcopal Church take this position as well my church the Episcopal Church? Just like I think probably all major denominations is pretty well split We have Many different opinions about this It's based in the way we accept the Bible is this the in in errant word of God so that we can pick out a few phrases that that seem to to justify

condemning homosexual practices and build a whole theology and sociology on that or are we believers in the Commandment to love one another as we believe our Lord loved us and forgive and heal and go on Committed to both truth and love I feel like they have to balance one another out And if you compromise truth for the sake of love Then you will have plenty of love, but you've sacrificed truth same way if you compromise love and just say well We need to love everyone and not be so concerned about truth To me there's a very deep truth that's involved here and the question needs to be raised Do governments who invented marriage whose idea was in the beginning? I'm convinced it was God's idea I'm convinced that he created male and female and Even if a person doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe in the Bible It seems to me all they have to do is look at nature itself and realize

that Homosexuality is against nature and I believe God did that for a good reason God loves people and he wants he set his boundaries to protect them and that's one of the boundaries and I believe that Practically speaking as we look at our society today and the disintegration of the family. That's what I'm concerned about I feel like Passage of same -sex marriage would further confuse people as to what a family is We've seen the breakdown of families in the last 30 years We've seen the results of that in our society and I believe that we need to rather than legitimizing Homosexuality by sanctioning same -sex marriages We need to affirm traditional marriages because I believe those are the building blocks of society have been through the ages And I believe they'll continue to be We have a lot of questions by the way that are being called in and a lot of them have to do with

well What is marriage anyway? what is it? Well the Webster's dictionary Dictionary definition of marriage does have to do with man and woman and and this statute or would it in effect? And if the law has changed this would in effect rewrite the definition of marriage, right? The first one does in fact mention male and female There are two others after it as I recall that do not mention sex whatsoever. They mentioned covenants. They mentioned commitments Webster I think can adapt The marriage seems the word marriage. I agree seems to be a trigger word and it seems emotionally loaded for quite a lot of people There has been a move amongst some gay and lesbian communities groups organized groups to to substitute domestic partnerships for the term marriage and to make all Committed relationships whether between homosexual couples or heterosexual couples into for legal purposes a domestic partnership and preserving

the term marriage then for the use of of church and Religion so that if you are married in a church the church then has the power to sanction that union All other considerations legal financial and other than would fall into this domestic partnership rubric, but I wouldn't confine Society by what you find on the pages of Webster's Dictionary marriage was also defined across much of the United States for a large part of the US history as marriage between people of the Same race in fact there were penal provisions and imprisonment for people who attempted to marry Somewhere of another race and that first began to change in the 1940s in California With the California Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited Caucasians from marrying quote -unquote Mongoloids and one miscegenation law was struck down after another So the definition of marriage was changed for civil rights reasons just as we're trying to change the definition here for civil rights reasons I

feel very strongly that the the the Churches all of us and I certainly include my own in this in the past have have supported Antisemitism based on scriptural validation Slavery based on scriptural validation the suppression of women based on scriptural validation Exclusion and condemnation of gays based on scriptural Validation in all of these the courts are our our lay leaders everybody from Abraham Lincoln who who said He didn't know the will of God everybody came to him saying you know I know the will of God here's what the will of God is and he's reputed to have said why doesn't God's tell me? So he could only try to do what was right, and I think this is a matter of civil rights. It's a matter of human right Expanding the understanding of marriage to make its stability its health and its purpose its focus available to more people Well, then there are some who would say that the Church's standards are slipping when

you're redefining what's right as you go along Leslie, I think that It's important to jump in here and to set some things off against what has been said already First of all the Supreme Court of Hawaii did not accept Mr. Foley's argument that this is the same as the anti -miscegenation laws because if that were the case the Prohibition against same -sex marriage would be null and void in the Hawaii Supreme Court would not have asked for a trial in this case We would not have this case We would have same -sex marriages by fiat of the Supreme Court of Hawaii another thing that's important is and I wouldn't try to Put myself in the position of Abraham Lincoln, but nonetheless It is true that there is a wide variety of very Emotionalized responses very gut level responses on both sides of this as lawyers for the state We cannot respond to those because those are not things that stand up in law And that's not what we were about in this case what the Attorney General is doing in this case To Christina what I would say is this

let's Disaggregate what's going on and I'm very glad that you talked about domestic partnership because that indicates that really there are Just like when you own a piece of property There's a bunch of strands that go along with that the right to build a house on it the right to do different things with it What we're talking about here are strands of benefits and strands of different things many of the things that you talked about with the Daughter in your relationship many of those things can be handled already Under the present law of contracts the present laws of will and devise the present law that pertains to adoption even in fact This isn't the case. We have my partner and I have revocable living trusts. We have medical powers of attorney We have durable powers of attorney the truth of the matter is that a judge sitting in a court somewhere if Dene were to die for some particular reason could look at my daughter and say She's of no relation to you whatsoever She could take my daughter and place her somewhere else entirely at whim. I have no legal right

To the relationship with this child but also that that but also on the other side of that and I'm an adopted father and so I'm very sympathetic to the the concerns of adoptive parents I was a step parent before I was an adoptive parent and The same situation happens in opposite sex couples with stepchildren and adopted adopted children So the problems that you face with respect to the child rearing because my partner and I are not Legally allowed to adopt as a couple One of us can adopt but not as a couple. I Guess that you know just for the purposes of this show. I'd have to leave it at that that this case doesn't Turn on that and as a lawyer and a deputy attorney general I would not submit that is the state's position that the laws are foreclosed to you We have no case law that discusses that issue at all And what I would say that that what really is involved in here is the problem of one -stop shopping What mr. Foley's lawsuit is about is taking the entire bundle and strand of benefits

that goes with marriage and preventing My friends in the legislature from even discussing those in a rational Dissected manner in the way that you're suggesting that we should discuss those. What are the problems? What are the benefits? are the detriments? What are the real obstacles that you're facing and what is the real concrete interest that you're advancing this lawsuit? it goes to final term and it goes in the manner that mr. Foley has suggested We'll simply wipe out that whole process of debate There is no compelling state interest that would prevent such a law as a domestic partnership law Which would enable my partner and I and other same -sex couples to enjoy the rights and privileges of married couples I'll just I'll let's pause on that We don't have many commercials in public television But we need one break and we'll take it now and we'll be back with the answer to that question On the next I'll fly away the sense of calm over our town is not real. It's a

facade a hard rain is going to fall It's good honest hard -working white people that make this town what it is Watch I'll fly away Monday at 8 Next time on front line The media feeding frenzy on the Michael Jackson story We had to splash on it. In other words, we had to put it all over the front page which we did. Thank God Behind the scenes of the tabloid press frontline examines its impact on American journalism We'll take a shred of evidence and try and turn it into a story We practice a form of checkbook journalism, but so does everybody else tabloid truth on front line Tuesday night at 9 We are back with dialogue the subject is same -sex marriage and whether Hawaii should become the first state to allow it and Viewers have been burning our phone lines with questions. We still have well less

than half an hour to go in this program Please feel free to call our volunteer phone bank the folks from the alpha Delta Kappa Kappa chapter at 9 5 5 7 8 And neighbor Islanders. We don't want you to spend money on this. Please call us collect 9 5 5 We want as many people as possible to have a chance to pose a question to our guests But first I promised Christina that your question to mr. Michaels would get an answer What's your question to him? It seemed it seemed as as Steven was talking that he was suggesting the state really has no compelling interest in blocking Domestic partnership agreement that would enable my partner and I to enjoy the same legal benefits legal protections Legal threads I believe he referred to as other married couples do the objection the state's compelling interest seems to be in Preventing our use of the term marriage. I think it's important to understand What we're talking about when we respond with compelling state interest the court has said that if we do not Demonstrate these interests

and that they're the laws narrowly tailored to address them that this law will be struck down But at the same time if the legislature were to pass a law tomorrow Saying that we have same -sex marriages or if we have domestic partnerships Our office would be the first one indeed We would be the one to defend that law to the hilt and we would believe that that would that law would pass muster It would be constitutional just like the law that we have now is constitutional and our office is very proud and to defend Gay rights when they are embodied in the statute Satutes of Hawaii I've defended the ban on discrimination employment Employment decision -making on this very network our office has taken the position that the public funds can be used to show very controversial Shows that deal with gay rights and so on and our office has taken very committed positions on that when the law of Hawaii in the Statutes has supported that there's nothing that prevents the legislature from going forward in its discretion and having Domestic partnership or even having same -sex marriage But

that in our judgment is the legislative Let's talk to the policymaker. I think the thread I get from a lot of these questions is what is fair? What is right? And there are lots of factors in determining what is right and fair Fair not only to the petitioners and Christina and others but then fair to the the population at large My my feeling is that that issues like this involve Should involve anyway a great deal of debate and and contemplation in this case We were kind of forced into taking up an issue That was presented to us by the state Supreme Court That really wasn't generated From the society at large Normally a Controversial matter like this would take literally years to to dwell on to to think about

and we'd have to be debating Marriage versus domestic partnership looking at the the rights that Christina feels are hers and her daughters There there I would the problem here as I see it is that we're being rushed into making decisions That were whose ramifications are not Clear to us and that as a result it is better to to stick with the Present institution the one that is by by far supported by the society and and slowly Work out a a policy that might include Providing the kinds of rights that Christina feels are hers In fact there have been committed gay and lesbian couples for decades and decades This has not been a particular rush to judgment that I'm aware of Secondly You seem to

you seem to have quite a lot of faith in an institution, which is showing very bad cracks The statistics of which I'm aware show quite a lot of spousal abuse child abuse Numbers of divorces Broken families and the like those statistics are based on heterosexual couples. They do not include Add we waited for state legislators to act we'd still have segregated schools women would not have the right of choice They would not be able to use contraceptives the civil rights struggle began in the courts not in state legislatures So when we just turned over to the courts then just you know We're in the courts Levin said make the decisions for us people went the tradition of this country Beginning with Thurgood Marshall was to go to the courts because state legislatures wouldn't listen in terms of race discrimination Go to the courts for women rights And we had our first civil rights act passed by the US Congress in 1871 the second one wasn't until 1964 in that Interim all the civil rights victories were in the courts

So this is not against the the tradition tradition of the United States in terms of civil rights This is very much a part of the tradition to go to the court society has not developed a consensus on this, right? It's not the problem representatives digmire Well, that's we do have a bill of rights to mr. Representative and that is for the minorities if we Developed a consensus on every issue minorities would have no rights. All right, but I think Dan That's a fine speech to make but it's really not appropriate for this state This is the state that decriminalized abortion long before Roe versus Wade This is a state that had an equal rights amendment long before the equal rights amendment even got out of Congress This is a state that never had a busing case because we've had a policy of anti -discrimination For many many years This is the state that benefited from all the civil rights decisions in the mainland that brought benefits here to minority groups nonetheless The focus of your case is to try and wrap your clients in the same cloak that

That Thurgood Marshall was wrapping his clients and not only is the Supreme Court Disagreed with that at a basic level and say let's let this this process be tested But more importantly Hawaii is also the state that is in the forefront of recognizing gay rights We were one of the first states to prohibit Discrimination in employment on a statewide level based on sexual orientation Pastor Arnold you you've said don't write me off as a homophobe. I'm not a gay basher But I think it is wrong to allow same -sex marriage. Why? Well because primarily of the two reasons I mentioned earlier first because of my faith and I think the historic Christian faith has determined Through the centuries that homosexuality is obviously declared by scripture to be defined as sin sinful behavior There are and have been groups that have tried to hedge around that and deny that but it's really clear The other thing is just our society in general.

believe all we have to do is look at the results of promiscuity Among homosexuals and see that the disease rate is higher in that group as compared to sexually transmitted disease as Compared to heterosexual groups. I don't believe that's true among lesbians. Is it this just in fact last couple days I've been pouring over states. I've been amazed at the amount of misinformation that has been tossed around on talk shows and Picked up oftentimes by the media about those kinds of things I believe it's certainly in the best interest The law has to deal with generalities They can't pick out one particular group and say this group corporate executives ought to be able to marry this group right here and The the state has determined for a long time That generally as Steve said earlier It's best for children to be raised in a family where there are role models the father and the mother I believe that's true And so you represent a constituency that essentially is never going to compromise on this issue, right?

No, because we hold that very strongly very deeply and we're committed to loving people We don't want to in any way Denigrate people, but we want to be committed to loving them and late and earlier stated that sometimes Christians have come out on the wrong side of issues like slavery and Women oh, I agree with that, but they've also come out on the right side of those Situations many times, but there's some things that are just clear to mean Mainline Christianity. Well, we're certainly not getting any consensus among religious leaders on this at all none whatsoever the Discussions that I I have with my peers both within the Episcopal Church and across the the interfaith community We're really very very seriously divided on this depending on a lot on how we we we accept scripture how we accept our calling to act in faith and charity and Love in the

world in which we find ourselves I'm really concerned that you say that it's been mainline Christianity for centuries to condemn homosexuality. I I don't read history that way and church history Leighton would say that the mainstream of Orthodox Christianity has since its inception Regarded homosexual practice as well as Heterosexual practice outside of marriage to be wrong Yes, and so that has been from the inception of Christianity the position There have been those who have objected to that, but that's not been the mainstream Christianity I could just step in because I think it's I would like to distance the state's position from the debate That's going on here because first of all is a matter of state law We do not have a sodomy statute. They're the private consensual behavior of adults as between themselves under our state law Is in our state statutes and the model penal code doesn't criminalize the the matters that the reverend is talking about secondly

as to Matters of disease I have to confess my client in this case is the director of health and Jack Lewin is very progressive director in our Policies in this case will Will reflect that I think that there is fair arguments to be presented by the gay and lesbian community that that in actuality having Game same -sex marriages would be good from a public health perspective And we're not going to be questioning that in this case because having committed relationships And you look at the people demographically who are likely to partake of same -sex marriages you're not talking about the the kind of health risk population that I think the Reverend was referring to Nonetheless that none nonetheless there are legitimate interests that we have in this law And we're we're going to be advocating those in a dispassionate manner in this case I'd like to comment on that. I do agree Steve that You know between a

committed Gay couple that the disease would decrease But to me the objectives of the homosexual community in any legislation like this are twofold First economic as Christina mentioned to secure economic benefits for themselves and for their families But secondly and I think more importantly to legitimize and normalize The acceptance of homosexual behavior in a society so if that happens the minority of relationships I'm believing would be Marriages many homosexuals don't want to be married because they've stated if age is ever classified as a health risk They could be exposed that way and the number of Partners that most homosexuals have is much greater than heterosexual population So I'm saying when it becomes normative when it becomes accepted the increase in disease in our society will be Exponential not among those committed couples, but in the general homosexual population I

think there's not agreement on the panel here Let's suffice to say that but I'd like to kind of move on to a new issue and by the way if you're wondering I have not been asking many questions tonight. This is rare for me It's not only because you folks are talking back and forth I would have stopped you if we had a lot of questions But what we have here is a lot of comments and it appears that a lot of people have made up their mind They they're telling us what they think and their mind is made up But let me just ask mr. Foley a question that has come up a few times And that is the comment was made that Hawaii was first in a number of areas We were the first to legalize abortion and we've been out front on child care And there there've been a number of areas in which Hawaii has been a so -called Progressive state. What is it though about? Hawaii that allows us to possibly If Christina gets what she wants and you get what you want to be the first state to allow same -sex marriage Are you taking advantage of particular laws here that aren't the same elsewhere?

Well, I would agree with Steve along the lines that our Our state has been more liberal and more tolerant as far as individual rights than many other states And I think that that's a factor To be the first is not necessarily bad For California to be the first to overturn a miscegenation law was not necessarily bad or to have the right of choice Was not necessarily bad that can be very good. I think one of the things that may be a factor in Hawaii and I'm not sure But because we have such a diversity of races and cultures and religions I think there may be a greater tolerance of various lifestyles and we also have a history here in the islands Of same -sex relations within the indigenous population prior to the missionaries coming All right, but three homosexual couples in another state could have brought the same lawsuit and it might not have worked as it has Well, they have it was in the early 1970s in Minnesota, Kentucky and the state of Washington where suits were brought and they were unsuccessful

and really not much until this suit Was brought in in 1991 and why do you think this has a more of a chance? Well, it has more of a chance now given the made decision of the court Finding sex discrimination and putting the burden on the state to show a compelling state interest We're we still have two more years of litigation. We still have the legislature jumping into it so a lot of things are happening and We don't yet have it. There's a lot more, but there is a difference in state laws Correct, there's a difference in state constitutions one of the things Hawaii has that the United States Constitution does not have And most states do not have it's an equal rights amendment and that was the cornerstone of the court's case There shall be no discrimination based on sex and sex is given the same sort of Elevated status is race Ancestry and national origin another question that has come up a few times in a bunch of cards a Pest on by our volunteers on which there are generally not a ton of questions just comments a Number of viewers would like to know Christina. What kind of morals

you are raising your daughter with? we're raising her in the Quaker tradition and With Quaker principles of And I won't speak as a Quaker. I'm not a Quaker, but I am an attender at the Quaker meeting here We believe that she should be a responsible child. We raise her to be responsible We raise her to be honest in her dealings with others. We raise her to be respectful of others Be they older than she younger than she Different than she of another race than she we raise her to be loving and kind We raise her to be Careful in her thoughts and in her words we raise her to be genuine in her expressions of feeling for others and Thought do you believe

that sexual preference can be passed to your child? No Let me just read a few comments if I may and I've just these are pretty much at random out of here But I just want to give you an idea of what people are saying comment people should be able to do what they want to do comment We're never going to agree on this. There are two different ways to think Man's way and God's way This is a legal matter and not a moral one Christina you should have thought about responsibility before you got involved not leave it to the state now Collar does not condemn person. He condemns the act God created Adam and Eve not Bobby and Steve and Comet for Reverend Arnold certain cultures accept homosexuality You should not only see homosexuality from a Western Christian point of view and by the way I know many objections are coming up from you as I read these Question to the opposition if you had been born gay when you want to be allowed to marry And I guess that's what many of these callers are referring to

some are saying You you become gay others are saying you are born Homosexual and and that's something that scientists have a number of things to say about and Religions don't give us direction on where should we go with this? I think the the you know polarization and the difference of opinion Shows we have an establishment clause in the First Amendment separation of church and state and freedom of religion So the Reverend can hold his view and practice his view and preach it in his church and so can this father These what we're talking about is marriage that we're litigating is a civil institution It doesn't have to be recognized by any church just as the Catholic Church doesn't right recognize a second marriage although the state does so that I think is one reason why it should be left to the courts or The legislature gets involved a couple and their government and not have a particular Religious viewpoint or particular church or a particular group of

clergymen being able to impose that view on the entire population There's other issues too that I'm sure the Reverend would like to have codified the use of contraceptives Abortion in other matters, and I think these things are best left in the church arena in that debate as opposed to codified imposed on all when we started Riding in the first freedom rides of clergy. We did not ride as Representatives of churches we rode for the sake of the people and I hear this terribly lacking in what we're talking about that There are people involved, and I'm not speaking as a priest or as a church person at this point But as a civil rights worker for my entire life. I think that we are are leaving out the values of society that will be Successfully or more successfully than in the past dealt with by having same -sex unions partnership agreements This will fight promiscuity it will will increase the the the public health it will Stabilize I think so much in our community it will Mean so much to the people and we in the

churches then we'll have our own fighting to do about it But for the sake of the people one of the questioners said that to the people I think that's the critical thing Well the debate that that we've had of late that one of those Questions of course is what what is the definition of marriage and even though we are a multicultural society? as I understand it there is universal acceptance of the concept of two people of opposite sex being Married and that's something that that I haven't you know We're any any exception to it. I'd be happy to refer you one book the spirit in the flesh written by Dr. Walter Williams of USC Department of Anthropology It explores the same -sex relations in Native American culture and gives you references to many other cultures the University of Virginia Law Review October

1993 lead article same -sex marriages By Bill Estridge of Georgetown, which does a chronology about the present though not the past no in present Well, why don't you give some examples? We're talking about history. What what specific examples are you talking about? Well, we're talking about the missionary society that's basically been able to bring their views and to impose it on cultures I don't think that that the Japanese Americans Who come from a Buddhist tradition have any different definition of marriage than the one that I have as a Christian? from European ancestry, I'd like to say that as a pastor I have no desire to impose my will on this culture and most Christians don't but I Appreciate you saying the legislators now got gotten involved to me They should get involved the people should get involved and Christians are people too and they're citizens too and they have every right in the democracy that we exist in to voice their opinion I'm a citizen as well,

and I can preach in my church, but the people and all Christians as well as Buddhists and Muslims can voice their opinion too, and that's what needs to happen Not the courts decide this matter the people need to decide this matter And I think it should be in the legislature. There's there's two things that I think are important to add At this point because Dan, you're right There's a lot of different cultures out there, and it is certainly not Beyond the scope of this case for you to raise evidence that there are other cultures. In fact, there are cultures where Polygamy is indeed practiced or was practiced and is deemed valid and legitimate And in fact you could ask Psychiatrists and psychologists and you can get a variety of opinion as to whether a polygamous Relationship can be nurturing and so on and so forth I think that you'd find it a fair number of them who would say under to the proper conditions It could if you accepted the psychological community's Present opinion as to what should be the marriage laws of Hawaii. We wouldn't have anything like what we have now

In all in all likelihood the question is whether the legislature in drawing lines in dealing with the very concrete and easily Carved up benefits of marriage can draw the line that it did now That is a legal question and this is also a case about not just people in Hawaii But this really is a nationally important case This case will change the history of domestic relations in the United States If it goes forward in the manner which mr. Foley if we legalize same -sex marriages will other states Have to recognize those same -sex marriages as well. That's not necessarily true In fact, one of the serious legal concerns that we have is really two -fold one Although as a general matter marriages rendered in one state must be recognized in another state The receiving state as it were is not bound to recognize a marriage in this case a same -sex marriage where? That marriage is odious or Contrary to the

established policies of that state. So for example, there will be a large number of states One would expect based on the rulings which mr. Foley went over before that will not accept or legitimize a Same -sex marriage in Hawaii if it is carried into that state Another concern that has to be considered is whether all marriages in Hawaii would not be recognized in some states or a number of states Because they come from a state that if we have same -sex marriage will have a law It is radically out of kilter with the laws of the 49 other states That's something that I think that the court the Supreme Court of Hawaii when they roll this thing out onto the tarmac And before they said it could fly they wanted to be tested to have those issues raised in a court and have a court Sort them out as to whether they raise compelling state interest or not. All right I guess as I understand it what happens is the legislature gets to actually two sessions to try to deal with this Senate Judiciary Chairman Ray Gralty has a hearing tomorrow on the subject that's at Mabel smith auditorium starting at 9 a .m.

And So there'll be a legislative session now, and there's one next year and you folks mr. Foley and mr. Michaels are scheduled to go to trial in April of 1995. That's next year. There is time for things to happen Doesn't sound Christina like They're moving like that But I would just like to comment to our viewers that this is this will gives you an idea Taking a at these index cards each each card I have represents a comment or question that you have phoned in and we have about half of our volunteers on the phone still Most of you have called in comments indicating that you have made up your mind I've never seen anything like this on dialogue before I've been part of this program for about six years now I wonder as we discuss it whether people have their minds open or not or Reverend Arnold you would probably tell us it's not something you should have an open mind about But I want to thank each of you for helping us to understand how the issues are being framed Obviously, we we have a lot of thinking to do as a community and as a society. Thank you for being here Next

week on dialogue these seats will remain hot The topic will be gambling in Hawaii and whether to legalize that Dan Boylan will moderate that discussion. I'm Leslie Wilcox thanking you for joining us tonight On dialogue and meantime, whatever your sexual orientation. Happy Valentine's Day Oh You The views

expressed on this program do not necessarily reflect the views of the Hawaii Public Broadcasting Authority or the staff of this station Questions or comments about the program may be addressed to news in Public Affairs Department 2350 Dole Street Honolulu Hawaii 968 22 You You