LINDA Lingle says if you believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, you should vote "yes" on the marriage issue. ''You can't have it both ways.'' Ben Cayetano echoes her position.
On having it both ways
I wonder if the opinion polls have more to do with those positions than personal convictions, but when the candidates look me in the eye and say they'll vote "yes," I believe them.
Those who feel homosexuality is a chosen behavior feel legalizing same-sex unions threatens traditional marriage and that unless it bans them the state will be condoning depravity.
Others are just as convinced that homosexuality is an innate condition or predisposition. They feel gay marriage is implicitly sanctioned by the state constitution's guarantees against discrimination on the basis of gender. The courts have agreed with them.
Unfortunately, the courts have not ruled on whether homosexuality is a status -- like race, age or national origin -- or a choice. More's the pity, since everything flows logically from that.
I also believe gays who say they'd never willingly choose their sexual orientation. For millions to opt for the consequences of such a choice is too perverse to be credible.
Personally, as a man happily married to a woman, I find same-sex marriage far less threatening than allowing one minority -- the Save Traditional Marriage campaigners -- to impose their will on another minority.
I'll vote "no."
John Flanagan is editor and publisher of the Star-Bulletin.
To reach him call 525-8612, fax to 523-8509, send
e-mail to email@example.com or write to
P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.