A big rain had just passed, leaving behind wet grass and glistening leaves when Koko and I went out walking this morning. The moon, with a sizable chunk already nibbled away, hung low in the southern sky, fading to white with the arrival of dawn.
Delightful fragrances lingered in the thick air, reminding me that it is May Day-Lei Day, and mist rose and swirled above the still sleeping Giant. In the distance, waterfalls streaked down Makaleha and Waialeale’s flat, gray-blue summit was visible through a dreamy, rose-tinted haze.
“Ugh,” pronounced my neighbor Andy in response to the mugginess. “It feels like summer is here.”
But I knew that wasn’t true, because if it were, I’d be headed down to the beach already instead of sitting in my house with a sweatshirt on, waiting for the day to warm up.
Things already are heating up in the governor’s office as folks on both sides of the civil-unions debate attempt to sway Lingle’s decision on the bill passed in a surprise, last-minute vote by the House on Thursday.
Those opposed to the bill admit they got complacent when the measure was shelved by the House after passing the Senate earlier in the session. So now they’re making up for lost time by laying it on thick with Lingle, who has the power to either veto the bill or let it stand.
I’m fascinated by the way the religious zealots have justified their opposition to a bill aimed at providing equality, as reported by The Advertiser:
Dennis Arakaki, the executive director of the Hawai'i Family Forum and the Hawai'i Catholic Conference, said religious conservatives and others who want to preserve traditional marriage will be fired up.
"This is not about the church against gays," he said. "It's actually about people standing up for traditional marriage."
But just how traditional are they talking about here? While doing a Google search on marriage, I found a definition provided by the Bible Dictionary , which I presume is the one they might want to follow, seeing as how the Bible is supposed to be God’s take on all subjects, right? And it states:
It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen. 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17; 1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2)
I’m not sure how many American women today, even the Bible bangers, would go for that one, or endorse the prescribed roles of each marriage partner, as outlined in Fausset´s Bible Dictionary:
Love, honor, and cherishing are his duty; helpful, reverent subjection, a meek and quiet spirit, her part; both together being heirs of the grace of life
Are any women — other than those being paid by Johns to play such a role — still into “reverent subjection?”
The Bible Dictionary also talks about how monogamy is the cornerstone of marriage, a concept that I imagine most gays seeking such a union would endorse, and mentions:
Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3).
So does that mean that prohibiting gays from getting married is actually more degenerate than allowing them to marry?
If only God had been a little more clear….
What isn’t clear is whether Lingle will sign the bill and distinguish her governorship by doing one great thing; veto it and add another item to her long list of screw-ups, or conveniently go off island so da Duke, as acting governor, can make big political hay by vetoing the bill.
In the meantime, I can’t understand why in the world The Advertiser isn’t allowing comments on the two stories it’s published on this very important issue. What’s up with that?