Linda Lingle Has Seen Through You Hawaii Gays Ditching the Word ‘Marriage’

Guys, c’mon. You thought getting Hawaii’s governor to sign the civil unions bill, which finally eeked its way out of both state legislatures, was gonna be an easy task? Not when Gov. Linda Lingle has the whole “But same-sex marriage is illegal” line to fall back on.

With Hawaii’s gays just a single signature away to actually receiving some marriage benefits (minus the word) — and an upgrade to the current domestic partnership band-aid — you’ve got the one woman who can make it happen saying things like, “It does appear to me on reading it, that it really is same-sex marriage, but by a different name.”

Which, let’s be honest, it so is! And what, you want to give marriage rights to college twinks who jerk off on school property? What kind of society do you gays think you live in.

(For what it’s worth, Lingle says she hasn’t made up her mind about a veto yet.)

Get Queerty Daily

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


  • Adam

    Many opponents of same sex marriage say they’re fine with civil unions for gays, so long as they aren’t referred to as marriages. This is a perfect indication of just how naive such feelings are.

  • Bill

    Wasn’t that the whole POINT of CREATING civil unions and domestic partnerships???

    So that heterosexuals could still wield their self-deluded sense of superiority over their gay children??? The only POINT of creating a separate institution was so that Heterosexuals could still walk around with the ‘we’re better than you are’ fantasy playing on a loop in their twisted little minds.

    They said they were fine ‘giving us the rights’ (which are ALREADY ours, bozos. You are just illegally withholding them) without the name ‘marriage.’

    But they really aren’t. They never were. Which only further proves that this is not now nor was it ever about marriage.

    It is about the heterosexual’s burning need to abuse, degrade, dehumanize and create Apartheid for their gay children. While screaming about morality, of course.

    Linda Lingle is simply yet another heterosexual douchebag who sees not her immorality. And whether she signs it or not, EITHER DECISION IS EQUALLY AS IMMORAL. THe woman is considering whether or not some human beings should be protected like other human beings should be.

    Either decision, indeed her VERY PARTICIPATION IN THIS, is immoral.

    There are certain unalienable rights every person is BORN with in this country. (unless you are gay, apparently.)

    Debating, deciding, discussing, or voting on whether or not to include your VERY OWN GAY OFFSPRING as a part of the human race would, by default Ms. Lingle, excuse you from any further discussion of morality and human rights whatsoever.

  • Xerxes

    She has had 2 failed marriages herself, now is “single”. She is an expert on what other people should be doing.

  • j

    @Xerxes: I wish I could thumbs up this ten times instead of just one. This is so often the case with these bigots its shocking. When you can’t control your own life, control others’, eh?

  • SugNight

    Give this hatchet face bitch the boot!

  • DC Gay Politico

    For what it’s worth, Lingle says she hasn’t made up her mind about a veto yet, so clearly this post will be productive in getting her to swing our way. I hope her communications staffers highlighted it for her in the package of daily press clips compiled by their interns.

    Can you people pleeeeeease stop trying to cover politics and just give us more pretty boys. this is a sadly a disservice.


  • Sir Andrew

    Dear snarky Queerty people,

    First, we do not have domestic partnerships, band-aid or otherwise; we have reciprocal beneficiary arrangements. They are as alike as gays with a functioning IQ and whatever it is that you are.

    Second, civil unions are so NOT marriage under another name. Until the more than 1200 federal marriage rights come along with civil unions, there is no similarity. Until married people are willing to trade their marriages for civil unions, there is no similarity.

    I can’t help but wonder exactly whose side you’re on in this fight. It’s clearly not the side of the gay community.

    Btw, the intro of the exhibitionist MAINLAND gay boy who’s attending our university into this story was so far off the mark of acceptable commentary that I’m nearly too stunned to remember to suggest into which orifice you can stuff this column.

  • Wade MacMorrighan

    I hope our opponents remember that, just a few years ago, they were saying, we should have something else, so long as it wasn’t the word “Marriage”! Well, now they are saying we can’t even have CUs, because they are too much LIKE marriage on paper?! WTF?! These facts, alone, need to get much wider media attention.

  • Clayton Manning

    has she made up her mind on whether or not to color her greys?

  • El Brucio

    The bigots are only willing to support civil unions when it looks like same-sex marriage has a good chance of winning, because then the two are *drastically* different. But if it appears same-sex unions are not popular, suddenly they are identical to civil unions. Funny how that works.

    Let us hope that like the Grinch, Ms Lingle’s heart grows several sizes larger and she supports it.

Comments are closed.