Media attention following the Hawaiian governor’s veto of a same-sex civil unions bill has been on whether tourists and businesses should boycott the beautiful island chain, a la the LA response to Arizona’s anti-undocumented-alien law.
This article from Time sets the scene and explains Gov. Linda Lingle’s reasoning for vetoing the bill after weeks of deliberation:
Throughout the day on Tuesday, citizens on both sides of the issue protested at the Hawaii State Capitol building in Honolulu. Proponents of the bill wore rainbow leis and played music from the Rent soundtrack; opponents led prayer sessions and carried signs bearing slogans like “God loves you! So he sets boundaries.”
But at 3 p.m. local time, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle delivered the news everyone had been waiting for when she announced she had vetoed the bill, citing a “flawed” legal process by which the measure was approved by state lawmakers 31 to 20 on the last day of the legislative session in April. Lingle, a 57-year-old Republican and Hawaii’s first woman governor, said she felt lawmakers had denied the public the right to weigh in on the issue with their 11th-hour voting, and she recommended that the bill go to a national vote.
What this article doesn’t mention is what role religion played in Lingle’s decision. That might not be unusual in many cases, but it is here. Even more unusual is that Herbert A. Sample of the Associated Press didn’t mention any faith-based influence in his article.
See, it was Sample who last month reported that Lingle, who is one of a few Jewish governors, was consulting with two rabbis representing two very different branches of Judaism. In the previous article, Sample wrote:
Rabbis Itchel Krasnjansky and Peter Schaktman hail from different branches of Judaism and hold starkly contrasting views on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions in Hawaii.
What they have in common is the ear of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who has until June 21 to announce whether she may veto the only pending civil unions legislation in the nation.
Obviously, Lingle got an extension. But looking past that, this story did a good job of discussing the different theological perspectives that Orthodox and Reform Jews bring to homosexuality and, by extension, civil unions and gay marriage.
But what was mysteriously missing from Sample’s story today, and any others I could find, is whether the words of Rabbis Krasnjansky or Schaktman made a difference in Lingle’s decision. Talk about a religion ghost, though, oddly, we might have missed it but for Sample’s earlier story.
Also of interest, at least to me, is whether one of the United States’ most popular Jews — Jon Stewart, of course — had Lingle’s ear. As Stewart said two years ago after the women pictured married in California:
Among the other couples were these two women, married by a rabbi, who celebrated with the traditional breaking of a glass. Now, I’m going to say something here: I don’t have a problem with them having children because they are gay, but I am concerned for the welfare of any child with two Jewish mothers.