Posted on 11/16/2013 6:27:36 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Thousands of Hawaiians missed school and work, waited in line to testify as their cars were towed, endured daily rule changes by lawmakers and otherwise battled uphill to provide state representatives with more than 50 hours of testimony that mostly opposed a same-sex “marriage” bill.
Lawmakers ignored them, voting for the “gay” agenda anyway.
But they may not be able to ignore the next step.
WND has learned of a plan to request a temporary restraining order preventing the law from taking effect, pending a trial on what voters meant in a 1998 vote on marriage.
Prior to the vote 15 years ago, state officials informed voters that a yes vote “would add a new provision to the Constitution that would give the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples only.”
However, in the actual amendment, the word “only” was deleted, which changed the meaning of the amendment significantly.
“The word ‘only’ was not on the ballot. In the used car business, we call this ‘bait and switch,’” a source said.
Now a move has begun to seek a restraining order and a trial to make clear what voters were sold in the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
help me out...how does removing the word “only” change the meaning ?
“Reserve to” would seem to be adequately restrictive.
When I say to my girlfriend : “I ONLY HAVE EYES FOR YOU.”, does that mean the same as : “I HAVE EYES FOR YOU”?
I’m with you. I draft legal documents for a living and that word “only” is entirely redundant, in this context.
The rest of it however is anything but clear. If the legislature has the power to limit marriage to same sex couples, it also has the power to refrain from doing so. I think that’s the real problem with this language.
Being from California I can attest that voter intent is not a concern to Government.
Glad someone is taking action. 90% of the time they have to do this through legislative or judicial tyranny. The will of the people must be suppressed. Total joke.
OOPS!
I should have said “...has the power to limit marriage to same opposite-sex couples...”
But, the effect is the same. The power to do something is also the power to refrain from doing so.
If you say to your girlfriend “I only have eyes,” is that the same as saying “I have eyes”?
Or if you say to her, “I might take you out to eat at Roger’s only,” it that saying the same thing as “I might take you out to eat at Roger’s”? In either case, you don’t actually have to take her out at all.
It’s from World class Nuts Daily, the same people who brought you the story about a Chinese sub-launched ICMB that some guy filmed blasting off for 10 MINUTES. Or, you know, a jet contrail or something.
Here’s the Hawaii wiki amendment page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Constitutional_Amendment_2_(1998)
If I am understanding it right, there were several judicial rulings that said they couldn’t ban ‘gay marriage’ per the constitution. So they passed an amendment that allowed the legislature to ban it if they wanted to. It’s the only amendment like that, to my understanding. So now the tide has turned and the legislature doesn’t want to ban ‘gay marriage’ anymore.
Hawaii passed it’s amendment by 69% in ‘98. NC passed it’s amendment last year by 61%, and was hailed as a great victory by many. Not a positive trend, in my opinion.
Freegards
Hawaii faked a Birth Certificate for Obama. They are lawless to begin with so do not expect some citizens to tell them what they can do.
Voters, shmoters, who cares what they think, they are too stupid to decide what to eat.
No...in our federal constitution (at least theoretically), the Congress may exercise only those powers which are enumerated. It cannot fabricate new powers out of thin air.
Refraining from exercising that power would mean not recognizing marriage at all.
We’re not talking about the US Congress or enumerated powers in this thread.
A liberal judge will sh*t can this petition faster than you can say “judicial activist”. Not going anywhere. You elect nothing but Democrats for decades, you face the consequence.
The law is not what is written, it is what the judge says it is. In Hawaii, with Democrats in control for over 60 years, the judges “owe”.
I would hope that the Hawaii legislature could not invent powers out of thin air.
Definition of and administration of marriage is well within the rights of any state government. The Hawaii State Constitution gives the legislature the power to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but it does not require them to do so.
I do not think that the Hawaii legislature is inventing powers out of thin air, except in the sense that I don’t think legislatures ought to have the power to redefine words in common use. I think I am in a minority on that one, since they do it all the time.
“help me out...how does removing the word “only” change the meaning ?”
It doesn’t. But this is WorldNutDaily we’re talking about - they are rarely encumbered by actual facts.
You’re absolutely right. The Amendment gave the legislature the right to define marriage. They did one way before, now they’re defining it another way now.
We don’t have to like the results, but there was nothing wrong with the process. WorldNutDaily is lying to us again in another desperate cash grab.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.