BREAKING: Marriage Legalized in Hawaii After Decades-Long Struggle

Hawaii-Lesbian-WeddingsMazel tov, Hawaii! You’ve finally won the freedom to marry the person you love. And it only took twenty years.

Today the Senate approved an amended bill that provides marriage equality to LGBT citizens. Governor Neil Abercrombie has pledged his signature, so it’s pretty much a done deal at this point.

According to news reports, the signing will likely happen tomorrow, and the weddings will start on December 2. Anti-gay freakouts are already underway and are scheduled to continue for the indefinite future, eventually dwindling to a few ranting weirdos.

It’s a sign of the times that this all happened so rapidly: in the 1990s, it took eight years to go from “couples apply for license” to “constitutional ban on marriage.”

But now Hawaii has moved from passing civil unions in 2009 to full marriage equality in just a few years. Won’t be long now before every other state joins in.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #hawaii #marriage stories and more


  • AuntieChrist

    (Won’t be long now before every other state joins in). And if we all clap our hands and really really believe. Tinkerbell will live. Sorry but I live in a very red state and at my age, I doubt that I will live long enough to see it legal here. Less than 35 percent voted for Obama in this state. That’s right Over 70 percent of the vote went to Romney.

  • note4mark
    According to the US Election Atlas, only one state went for Romney by more than 70%: Utah. Wyoming was close at 68%.
    As an ex-Mormon, I know how ingrained the LDS Church leadership is in its ways. But time is not on their side. Literally. Most of those guys aren’t long for this world. They may yet live just long enough to witness the US Supreme Court declare all remaining state constitutional bans on same-sex civil marriage unconstitutional before they shove off. So chin up, friend, chin up, wherever you are.

  • Geoff B

    @AuntieChrist: You never know. I don’t know what state you live in, but miracles happen (i never thought Iowa would beat IL,NJ or HI, but they did). Plus, it’s just a matter of time till the SCOTUS strikes down the section of DOMA that violates the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution (seriously, I could argue that case, and I’m a bartender). Pretty soon it’s coming to every state, then 200 years from now, MS and AL will finally strike their anti gay laws off the book.

  • Dakotahgeo

    @AuntieChrist: You’d be surprised what the ACLU and top lawyers can do in a class action lawsuit, especially when the red State bigots have no precedence to stand on. State constitutional amendments have dashed in a flash in state where that was a problem. Keep looking up… inch by inch, everything’s a cinch!

  • Sweet Boy

    Mazel tov….and Aloha !

  • AuntieChrist

    @Geoff B: My sweetie of 24 years is perturbed by me and my glass half empty attitude.I live in Oklahomo now. Born and raised in California.

  • aequalitasTN

    Ok… Any lawyers out there, correct me if I am wrong on this, but is Secretary [of Defense] Hagel not sitting on enough to end this whole damned fight, once and for all, within the next few weeks? Governors of seven states of the union (TX, MS, LA, SC, OK, FL, and GA) have order their states’ Adjunct Generals to not comply with orders issued by their Commander-in-Chief, through the Secretary of Defense, and not to allow same-sex couples to apply for military benefits (funded entirely by US tax dollars) at bases run by the state national guard (partial funding from the states, other part from the US) government. Now Secretary Hagel has demanded that the Adjunct Generals comply and do it anyway, to which they have refused. We could simply federalize the national guard for a short time and then if they don’t do it then court martial their asses, BUT Would not the smarter move here by to initiate suit, acting on the court precedent created by Windsor v. US? Because the acts of the governors create a direct challenge to federal law regulating military benefits being administered by the Pentagon, and a direct challenge to the command authority of the President for the military established by the Constitution, there should be sufficient cause for the executive branch to initiate the suit on behalf of the United States, as established in US v. Texas, and because the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS established by the Constitution, and later clarified in Cohen v. Virginia, would apply, the court of first instance would be SCOTUS. A hearing of the case by the high court, therefore, is guaranteed.

    Further, the constitutionality of the DOMA section 2 could be challenged on 14th and 5th amendment grounds, while at the same time challenging the constitutionality of the state constitutions, which is the reason these governors are giving for coutermanding the lawfully issued orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Now given, there is a gamble the justices could reject the argument, I think that it is much less likely than if the heard a marriage case on appeal for several reasons: you are dealing with command authority of the military being exercised by governors in defiance of the President intertwined with the constitutionality of a law, the president of the court created by Windsor deeming the ban on the federal level unconstitutional, and the supremacy clause in article 6 of the Constitution nullifying state laws that are in opposition to federal laws. I suppose one could always argue that congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, but since the court has clearly said that banning it is in opposition to the 14th amendment, that clearly allows for such; this, however, would not matter, if the prior 2 arguments were accepted by the court.

    Now being that I have a flare for the dramatic (and yes I know it has never happened before and is unlikely even if this unlikely scenario comes to pass) since the President in this scenario is the agrieved party, and acting as Head of State, I would love to see this argued by our president before SCOTUS; this will never happen, of course, but it would certainly be cool.

    Attorneys, please commence picking this apart…

  • aequalitasTN

    @aequalitasTN: Also, I would like to point out the supreme irony that would occur if the governors’ refusal to carry out this order precipitated their Constitutional Bans’ own downfall.

  • JFSebastian

    @aequalitasTN: Totally brilliant

  • gaym50ish

    Actually, the LDS Church has been conspicuously absent from the 2012 and 2013 marriage debates. Mormons had sunk about $20 million into California’s Proposition 8 campaign but were not prepared for the backlash, even from their own membership. Ultimately it seemed that the money was squandered when the initiative was struck down by the courts.

    The church leadership also made a conscious decision to assume a lower profile on gay marriage during the 2012 presidential campaign so that gay-marriage supporters would not be turned away from Mormon candidate Mitt Romney. The church has dropped out almost completely from the National Organization for Marriage.

    Some say that an even more important reason Mormons have not been engaged since 2011 is that they are actually softening their attitudes toward gays, ministering to their gay members rather than excommunicating them. (Personally, I’ll believe it when the “prophet” has a revelation that God wants them to change.)

Comments are closed.