Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Hawaii civil union bill gains steam
01.26.2009 2:55pm EST
(Honolulu, Hawaii) A majority in the state House has signed on as co-sponsors of a bill that would give same-sex couples in Hawaii all of the rights of marriage but without the name. But whether the bill will make it to a vote on the floor depends on just a couple of committee members who are expressing reservations.
If passed, the measure would legalize civil unions with all of the benefits, protections and responsibilities of marriage. It would also recognize domestic partnerships entered into in other states where they are legal. Marriages from Massachusetts and Connecticut would be regarded as civil unions.Under the legislation, same-sex couples would have to obtain a license and then have the civil union performed by a judge, a retired judge or a member of the clergy.
In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court was the first in the country to rule that barring same-sex marriage could be a violation of the state constitutional protection of equal rights.
In 1997, the state legislature passed a domestic partner law allowing gay couples to register with the state Department of Health. It allowed couples to have rights as reciprocal beneficiaries in hospital visitations, inheritance and property, and the ability to sue for wrongful death.
But in 1998 as calls for same-sex marriage increased, nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters passed a constitutional amendment giving the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro (D), who is the sponsor of the civil union bill, believes Hawaii has changed and the time is right to bring in civil unions. His bill now has 32 lawmakers in the 51-member House as co-sponsors.
But before it gets to the floor of the House, the bill needs approval of the House Judiciary Committee. Its chair Jon Riki Karamatsu (D), a co-sponsor, believes he has enough votes to advance the measure.
Only one committee member, Sen. Mike Gabbard (D), has indicated he will oppose the measure. Gabbard was one of the leaders in the campaign for the 1998 amendment.
“The people of Hawai’i, we decided this issue 10 or 11 years ago, when 70 percent of the people voted against same-sex marriage,” he told The Honolulu Advertiser. “And, to me, civil unions is same-sex marriage with a different name.”
Another committee member, Sen. Robert Bunda (D), who in the past has opposed bills to recognize same-sex couples, said he is keeping an open mind.
“For me, I have to read and digest what’s in the bill before I actually make a decision,” he told The Advertiser. “I’ve been told I’m the swing vote, I don’t know for sure. If I am, my priority is to make sure that I understand fully what’s before us.”
Civil Union laws will not work, and will end in lawsuits if they discriminate against secular straight couples. “Marriage” is an entirely religious institution, in which the state has no place (see ’separation of church and state’). Therefore, to prevent straight couples from participating in secular civil unions is a violation of their rights, will end in court. Please note that these straight secular couples support civil unions for gay couples too — they want equal rights for all!
On February 16, 2007, I wrote an article for “Equality Marriage for Same Sex Couples” (Canada) about the New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the state legislature’s spineless Civil Union “compromise” which was later adopted.
The title of the article is: “There is a Snake in the Garden State of New Jersey”
Unfortunately, all of my fears were proven correct regarding that degrading “marriage” apartheid alternative — as you can see in my article (which is too long to reprint here).
Check it out:
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/sna160207.htm
“As long as the rights are identical, who cares what it is called? Really. Let’s let marriage be a religious institution and all those churches that want to participate in the ritual may do so with whomever they choose. The important point is civil rights!”
NO!
Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It never has been and never will be. The US is not a country governed by religious law. Neither is the UK where I am. That means that all religious marriage ceremonies make you married in the eyes of your Church only. It is only when you sign a legal document at the end of the religious ceremony that you are LEGALLY married.
And then, of course, there are the majority of weddings each year that do NOT take place in any religious institution, but instead are purely civil ceremonies.
Straight people have the choice of entering into a religious marriage in a Church or a purely civil marriage performed outside of any religious institution. Gay people are being denied that right and having their legal marriage called a “civil partnership” to let the world know it’s not the same as marriage, even if it involves some of the same rights.
Religious institutions have the right to refuse to marry straight couples for any reason, or no reason at all. Laws in the US and UK generally protect the rights of the Church to decide who they will and won’t marry. Why not allow them to decide to NOT marry same-sex couples? Why deny same-sex couples the right to marry just because it might put Churches in the awkward position of having to say “No”?
They do it all the time. My father divorce my mother and married another woman. The Catholic Church refused to allow him to have a church wedding and do not officially recognise his marriage to my stepmother. Why should a same-sex union be any different?
Different religious groups have different rules regarding marriage. Some won’t marry divorcees. Some won’t marry people who haven’t been in regular attendance for more than 12 months. Some won’t marry people based on their chosen profession (I recall a case a few years back where a glamour model here in the UK was refused the right to marry in her church because of her profession).
And there are some religious groups, some churches, that have said they would happily perform same-sex marriages.
No, I’m sorry, I don’t buy into this “same but different” bullshit. Civil unions are discriminatory. They are marital segregation. Same-sex marriage should be legal, churches should have the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples, and the idea that marriage is a religious concept should be a thing of the past.
And for the record, anyone who says “who cares what it’s called” is either stupid or hasn’t thought their response through adequately. A civil partnership is the same as a marriage in the same way that a faggot is the same as a homosexual – but I know what I would rather be called.
The only viable alternative I’ve heard is to get rid of Marriage even for straight folks (leave the word to the religions) and allow everyone to have State (preferably Federal) rights to enter into the Civil Union of their choice.
This is the best option. As long as the rights are identical, who cares what it is called? Really. Let’s let marriage be a religious institution and all those churches that want to participate in the ritual may do so with whomever they choose. The important point is civil rights!
No, its just be best for now bill. They actually put a SSM bill in the Senate…so it could get refused and this one passed.
Sorry Brad,
But we are not those other countries whose laws are natiowide for them and binding on all.
Look at New Jersey for abundant lessons in the total failure of NJ civil unions to protect gay couples. So many of these gay couples testified at a hearing about NJ civil unions that insurance companies told them that the only word that carries any currency with them is the word marriage.
One NJ couple testified that they said that they just got “civil unioned” in NJ and my partner needs to be covered under the health care plan that I have. NADA. This woman testified that she next told those insurance folks that she and her spouse were married in Massachusetts under the law of that state, and as soon as the word “married” was heard, her partnered was then covered.
A male couple testified that when they pointed out that they married in MA, in their case their employer chose to ignore the federal law backed up by the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act that says that employers etc in one state are not bound to honor gay marriages legal in otber states and this employee’s partner and as well as the employee were covered.
So Brad, we are hearing people in civil union states from Vermont to New Jersey say that they have to explain again and again to employers and insurance companies about their civil unions, the civil unions are worthless when crossing state lines into a non-civil union state apart from the refusal of employers and insurance companies to pay the civil unions any heed. We are a country of state by state law and not one like New Zealand where the same law covers the entire country at once.
Civil unions and partnerships elsewhere may have the weight behind them for the entire country, but what works there does not work here and separate is not equal as Isaac pointed. Those nonwhites had to drink from a separate fountain with an inferior water quality and the civil union are no different. Separate and for the most part a failed experiment.
Only civil marriage good for all in the USA gay or straight alike will protect gay couples when it comes to providing these same-sex couples with the recognition they need.
But was is needed most and will speed progress much faster along is a repeal of the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) The federal level of DOMA impacts gay family recognition at US entry points of even gay couples legally married to each other at US customs and immigration even at the US customs booths in Canadian airports as well as the at the actual US borders. Prevents social security and veterans benefits from going to the surviving spouse in same-sex marriages, (forget the civil unions they aren’t respected and don’t protect anything anyway in actual practice. And the federal DOMA is the rationale for the federal law saying that states don’t have to recognize gay marriage and unions legal in other states or legal in foreign countries.
The very idea that the federal DOMA may or may not get around to being repealed as some point has opponents of marriage equality very upset and worried. The repeal of the federal level of DOMA is like kicking the legs of the “table” away so to speak. The “table of marriage inequality” will rapidly come crashing down with the repeal of this one very big odious obstacle that is supporting so much inequality rubbish on our borders and throughout our nation in different ways.
As one Canadian said, he is glad as a Canadian he doesn’t have to worry about this rubbish we Americans go through.
In Canada, same-sex military couples can get married on a military base as happened recently at a Canadian military base in Nova Scotia.
As we all know, in the USA gays can’t openly serve in the military and certaintly have no military or federal rights to gay marriage.
And can’t not binational gay couples cannot remain in the USA when the foreign partner’s visa expires since our fed gov doesn’t allow gay marriage on the federal level here. In Canada, a foreigner in a same-sex marriage with a Canadian can stay in Canada.
So two things for American gays, civil unions don’t work as intended and must be replaced with marriage and the federal level of DOMA must be repealed as soon as possible.
Time to push our legislators and our president over and over again. It’s 2009 and it’s time for this country to act like it has finally seen the 21st century and has given its own gay
citizens what our neighbor Canada, an African nation and 4 soon to be 5 European nations have given theirs.
“If you look at these countries though, most of them had some sort of separate institution (civil union, domestic union, etc.) with all the rights of marriage for a few years prior to making the shift to gender neutral marriage.”
I completely agree with you. Civil unions CAN be seen as a steppingstone to legalising same-sex marriage. However, there is a risk that some people will see civil unions as “enough” and refuse to consider anything more.
In the UK civil unions have been legal for a number of years, but when the idea of same-sex marriage was raised recently the general attitude of politicians was, “Why? We’ve got civil unions, so what’s the problem?”
There’s a little story a friend of mine once told in his blog, and I’d like to share it with you:
“Once upon a time there was a small town in Alabama. It had a name, but that name is completely irrelevant to this story, and in fact it could be any small town in Alabama, or in many other places across the US, at the time.
“Anyway, it was a pretty little down, home to good Christian folk. At the centre of this town there was a park – a beautiful park with landscaped gardens, a stream running through the centre, surrounded on three sides by the town’s main shops and on the fourth side by the town’s main Church and library. And in the park, on the east side nearest the Church and the main shops, there were twelve drinking fountains that delivered to users fresh, crisp water. And above these fountains there was a sign. That sign read:
“‘NO COLOREDS’
“Well, one day the Mayor of this good town received a petition from a number of black residents complaining that they often became thirsty while out shopping and had nowhere to get a drink of water. The Mayor’s first instinct was to tell them to get lost, but he was a good Christian man and after a bit of careful thought he decided that the right thing to do would be to demonstrate some compassion. So he got together with the rest of the white folk on the town council and debated how they might solve the problem of the thirsty black shoppers.
“Almost a year later a new water fountain opened on the west side of the park, a single water fountain built and paid for by the good white folk in this small Alabama town so the black residents would no longer get thirsty when they were out shopping. It didn’t deliver the same quality of water – it was tepid and tasted slightly metallic – and it was quite a distance from the most popular shops, but at least they finally had a fountain.”
Civil unions are the marital equivalent of those water fountains for us. They give us a similar thing, but in a very different way, a way that tells the world that we’re different, that we’re not entitled to drink the same water as everyone else.
Civil unions CAN be a steppingstone. After people get used to us drinking from a fountain they may eventually decide that it’s fine for us to drink from the SAME fountain as everyone else. However, if the LGBT community eases up on the battle for same-sex marriage, even for a moment, there is a risk that people will say, “You’ve got a fountain. You’re not thirsty anymore. What are you bitching about?”
I am all for gay marriage, and MA and CT are leading the way. In addition, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, South Africa, and now Sweden (as of May 1st) have same sex marriage.
If you look at these countries though, most of them had some sort of separate institution (civil union, domestic union, etc.) with all the rights of marriage for a few years prior to making the shift to gender neutral marriage.
It is totally understandable to demand marriage equality immediately, but I am not sure that is the best way to acheive things in the long run. I think the civil union route allows a period of time where gay people are legitimized in the eyes of the voters and politicians. Once the realisation takes place, it’s hard to continue to deny them full equality and gender neutral marriage picks up more support.
I sincerely believe that the Hawai’i marriage espisode in the 1990s is directly responsible for the federal DOMA legistlation. If we push too hard, too fast we might end up getting more restrictions. On the other hand, it is agonizing to be treated as 2nd class.
In any event, there is a path gay rights seem to follow. I think we need to push for whatever is feasible in the given State. I am not sure how the waters are in Hawaii. But, I think, for example, getting gender neutral marriage in New England is certainly a realistic goal. While I would say civil unions or even prohibition of discrimination in Texas is a longshot.
If we can get Congress to pass a repeal of DOMA, I am sure President Obama will sign it. Then a civil union or same sex marriage would finally have access to the really important rights.
I am hopeful I might see the day when marriage is legal in most US States.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The beginning words of our founding documents. I have never understood, what part of this statement do they NOT understand?
I have to agree with Rick – “It just ain’t the same”. Civil Unions, Domestic Partners or whatever else you’d like to call them, all fall short of marriage.
They may have all had their place years ago, but now we must demand equality over inequality. By the same token we must reject anything less than full equality. Civil Unions and the like will only slow us down in the long run because they will give voters the sense that we have all we need. Plus, what has already been done by law (civil unions, etc.) will have to legally be undone so as to make way for what needs to be done (marriage). That will give ammunition to those who oppose equality. “It is unnecessary or it is too expensive or too complicated or too time consuming.”
Marriage equality is the single acceptable option. If we accept less we have no one but ourselves to blame when we find another 20 years must pass before we have a chance to have what everyone else has access to.
The only viable alternative I’ve heard is to get rid of Marriage even for straight folks (leave the word to the religions) and allow everyone to have State (preferably Federal) rights to enter into the Civil Union of their choice.
I’m ashamed to be from such a land where the people follow such thick, blackened hearts. Gabbard is nothing but a social conservative tool who likes to live in the past when its convenient and quote outdated sources.
Why would clergy be performing “civil unions” instead of marriages? This is not only discrimination based upon the gender of the participants, it’s also religious discrimination.
Someone should inform Gabbard that we dont live a decade ago. If he cant move with the times, then perhaps he shouldnt be in government.
IT JUST AINT THE SAME, FOLKS,,