David Weigel, a journalist who covers and blogs about conservatives and libertarian politics for the Washington Post, got into some controversy when tweeting about ‘bigots’ who fight against same-sex marriage. While he did retract from his endorsement of the term, he reiterated his opposition to laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation:

I’m a bystander in the same-sex marriage debate — I haven’t given to any cause on either side. But in 2006 I did vote against a Virginia same-sex marriage amendment, which passed. I didn’t, and don’t, think social issues should be subjected to votes like that. I don’t support much direct democracy in general — this is a republic, and we shouldn’t throw these kinds of decisions to the electorate at large.But why was I willing to be so disrespectful to one group of activists? Unlike with most activists, I don’t really see the direct impact on their lives, or on the lives of the people who agree with them, of the cause they oppose. Antitax protesters are threatened by higher taxes. Anti-health-care-bill protesters fear their coverage will get worse. Anti-meat-eating protesters believe animals are being murdered and the environment is being made worse.

Even the birther movement has always made a kind of sense — oust Obama from office, and you get a chance to reverse what damage you think he’s done to your country.

But who’s threatened by legal same-sex marriage? Whose life is made worse? If there was science suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than children raised by traditional families, that would be one thing, but I haven’t seen it. We’ve watched legal same-sex marriage in several European countries and several states, and it hasn’t ushered in some decline in the quality of life, or marriage, for those who don’t participate in it.

That’s what I don’t understand. That’s my bias, for now. I’ll happily entertain arguments for the contrary.

Hawaii’s state legislature passed legislation legislation affording same-sex couples many of the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The state House of Representatives passed the bill by a 31-20 vote late Thursday, but Republican Governor Linda Lingle has until early July to sign or veto the groundbreaking new law.

Marriage equality in the ‘Aloha State’ has a long history, as it was in 1991, in a decision by the State Supreme Court that invalidated laws that prohibited same sex couples from wedding. However as a reaction to this action, voters passed a constitutional amendment empowering the legislation to define marriage as a heterosexual insitution. That referenda did not close the door on civil unions though.

If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states including California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington granting civil union status to same sex couples. Full civil marriage are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, DC. Marriages performed in other states are recognized in Maryland, New York and Rhode Island.

The legislation has sparked an intense lobbying effort by the Catholic Archdiocese and many religious groups seeking a veto from Governor Lingle.

Reade more about Hawai’i’s new civil union law and the efforts surrounding the legislation in the Honolu Advertiser.

Former First Lady Laura Bush, in her soon-to-be-release memoir Spoken From The Heart has gone on the record to outline her counsel to her husband about the use of same-sex marriage as an election strategy in the 2004 elections:

“In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead.”

Read more excerpts from Spoken From The Heart at the Daily Beast.