A Republican state lawmaker intent on blocking same-sex marriage in Hawaii has filed a lawsuit claiming lawmakers do not have constitutional authority to change the state’s definition of marriage. Representative Bob McDermott, 50, the Republican Minority Whip, is suing over the state’s 1998 constitutional amendment, which reads that the state “legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
Governor Neil Abercrombie, the state legislature, and state Attorney General David M. Louie have all agreed that the language gives the legislature the power to extend marriage to same-sex couples.
Rep. McDermott told the Associate Press he is working to get a judge to “to shut this whole thing down.”
McDermott, whose state website states he “has been married for 25 years and is the father of eight children,” does not agree, despite Louie’s office letter to the contrary.
“I was there in 1998 as a member of the State House … a claim few in office today can make,” McDermott said in a statement. “The people thought they were answering the question once and for all. However, the horrible language that was foisted upon the people by the Senate Judiciary committee at the time left us with no choice but to accept the amendment. This explains the mess we are in today.“
But McDermott is clearly operating on a scorched earth campaign. Just two days ago he attempted what would have amounted to a coup of the Republican side of the state House, by attempting to overthrow current House GOP leadership to install more conservative leaders.
McDermott has spent a good portion of his time in the legislature opposing the LGBT community. Last summer he called Hawaii’s civil union’s law the “worst” legislation the state had ever passed.
“Civil Unions gave ‘all rights and benefits of marriage’ to same sex couples. If you disagree with this, you are labeled a hater, a bigot, ignorant, or unenlightened. Non-sense,” McDermott told Honolulu Civil Beat:
The state has a compelling interest in providing a healthy, wholesome, nurturing environment for the children in their custody due to parental abuse. When those children, who are damaged both literally and figuratively, are placed into the foster/adoption pool, the state has a moral obligation, responsibility, a duty to ensure that they are placed in the most optimal situation possible – clearly, that is with a loving mom and dad.
These children are already at a disadvantage, they deserve the highest degree of normalcy and order possible. It is beyond dispute that a loving mother and father provide the best chance for children to be successful. I speak not from idle chatter heard in the faculty lounge, but from real life experience in these issues.
Despite the dedicates of the PC police, there is absolutely a difference between the nurturing, love and tenderness that a mom can deliver and that of two men who practice homosexuality. In fact, science tells us that a child cannot be created without a male and female. So why would we ever obligate a child to an artificial situation where they will never ever have a mother or father to speak of? Who speaks for the child? Do they have a choice in the matter?
Imagine for a moment, a loving husband and wife go into to adopt a child, next to them are two men who practice homosexuality. All things being equal, if the Judge says, I think the child would do better with a mom and dad, he is now a bigot. In my view he is exercising common sense.
Adults pushing this issue have overlooked the impact upon children. This should be a child centered issue, not an adult center issue based on a life style that they choose based on psychological behavior and not genetics. This entire debate misses the question, who speaks for the Kids? I will.
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.