Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle is already on the defensive about Tuesday’s veto of the state’s civil unions bill. She’s dropped all the way down to using the incest analogy. Too bad it backfired. Badly.
“For those people who want to makes this into a civil rights issue, and of course those in favor of the bill, they see it as a civil rights issue,” Lingle told radio listeners today. “And I understand them drawing that conclusion. But people on the other side would point out, well, we don’t allow other people to marry even — it’s not a civil right for them. First cousins couldn’t marry, or a brother and a sister and that sort of thing. So there are restrictions, not to put it in the exact same category. But the bottom line is, it really can’t be a civil right if we are restricting it in other cases, and it’s been found to be legal in those other cases, that the restrictions.”
Wait. What’s this? First cousins actually are not barred from marrying each other in the state of Hawaii?
A caller told Lingle, “And the second point is, Gov. Lingle, you talked about restrictions on marriage. I have a first cousin named Kate, and I’m looking on the Department of Health website for Hawaii, and I could marry my cousin Kate in Hawaii, but I cannot marry the love of my life in Hawaii, so — or in terms of a civil union with him. So, I hope you will take that into consideration.” (Lingle responded: “Whether or not a first cousin can marry in Hawaii, I’ll have to go back and check. I don’t know that that’s untrue, but let me go back and check on that.”)
So not only does Lingle believe incestuous relationships as unworthy of legal recognition of gay ones, she doesn’t even know if her state has banned the true “gross one.” Go ahead, start a comment thread full of “FAIL.”