Hawaii Lawmakers Approve Civil Unions in 'Historic' Vote - Will the Gov. Sign?
support civil-rights
Hawaii Lawmakers Approve Civil Unions in 'Historic' Vote - Will the Gov. Sign?
Lawmakers in the Hawaii state House of Representatives gave a highly controversial civil unions bill (H.B. 444) that had seemed dead in the water their final legislative approval on Thursday, voting 31-20 in favor of the measure.
The bill, which garnered some of the biggest protests Hawaii has ever seen, would grant gay and lesbian couples essentially the same rights, benefits and obligations that the state provides for married couples. The bill also recognizes same-sex unions that have been entered into in other states. As such, marriages from Massachusetts and Connecticut and all states that have approved equal marriage rights, will be recognized as civil unions in Hawaii should the bill be signed into law.
The Senate passed the bill in January, but with a few amendments meaning that it would have to return to the House. Fearing reprisals from the voting public come the November elections and knowing that Governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, was likely to veto the measure, House lawmakers chose not to take up the bill. Yet, on the final day of the legislative session on Thursday, Democratic House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro moved to reconsider the legislation.
Oshiro had previously said that he would not bring the civil unions bill to a vote, but after having acted on every other bill that had been introduced this year, he used this as a last opportunity to return to H.B. 444. Previously, Gov. Lingle had urged the House to give other legislation priority, warning that she would not look favorably on the bill if they passed civil unions ahead of other legislation such as economic reform and the like. That issue removed, Oshiro chose to press ahead.
Passage of the bill, which has been hailed as "historic", was no small feat though. It required a series of four votes, the first to suspend legislative rules, the second to bring the measure back to the House floor for a vote, the third to then approve the Senate amendments on the bill and lastly a fourth to pass the bill itself.
The Senate amendments that needed to be voted on included a measure that would grant the right of civil unions to both same-sex couples andopposite-sex couples. This was added to the bill to try and assuage accusations that the bill discriminated against heterosexual couples, which was one of the early criticisms opponents had levied at the bill to try and prevent it passing. The amendments were adopted 31-20.
Gov. Lingle now has 45 days to approve or veto the bill. While the final vote in the Senate was enough to override a veto, the House fell just short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Should the governor veto, lawmakers can return to the issue in the House and Senate during a one-day override session in July, but this seems unlikely given the controversial nature of the bill.
It also seems unlikely that Lingle will actually sign the bill into law. As stated above, she previously urged lawmakers to not to take up the legislation. However, she could allow the bill to become law without her signature, which, given that she will not be seeking another term in office, might seem an acceptable alternative.
Speaking to the Associated Press, Blake Oshiro said: "We'll have to wait and see what she is going to do. I would strongly encourage her to take a serious look at the issue. ... It's not about marriage, it's just about equality."
There is a further reason for Lingle to allow the legislation to pass. Following the House deciding to not take up the bill earlier in year, Lambda Legal and the ACLU announced that they would sue the State for failing to grant civil unions, saying that this violates the guarantee that Hawaii’s constitution makes to give equal rights and responsibilities to everyone, a right which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii in 1996 as being applicable to sexuality and legal recognition of same-sex unions, though they did not specify that "marriage" itself had to be the vehicle through which to confer those rights.
In a backlash, the now infamous federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted as a direct result of the court case as it was feared that the Supreme Court ruling might force other states to recognize marriage equality as well.
Hawaii’s constitution was amended in 1998 so as to allow the legislature to enact its own state level DOMA and restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. In late 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, thus preventing same-sex marriages in the state.
However while same-sex couples could not seek full marriage rights, the lesser institution of civil unions was never ruled out, and given that they would provide a full range of state law protections (but not federal benefits, obviously) the ACLU and Lambda Legal claimed that denying same-sex couples the right of civil unions violated the Hawaii constitution as it relegates gay and lesbian families to a lower status that withholds vital protections in several areas of life.
Following Thursday's events, Lambda Legal praised the House for passing the bill but they indicated that if Gov. Lingle chose to veto the legislation, they would still take to the courts to press the issue:
The bill, which garnered some of the biggest protests Hawaii has ever seen, would grant gay and lesbian couples essentially the same rights, benefits and obligations that the state provides for married couples. The bill also recognizes same-sex unions that have been entered into in other states. As such, marriages from Massachusetts and Connecticut and all states that have approved equal marriage rights, will be recognized as civil unions in Hawaii should the bill be signed into law.
The Senate passed the bill in January, but with a few amendments meaning that it would have to return to the House. Fearing reprisals from the voting public come the November elections and knowing that Governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, was likely to veto the measure, House lawmakers chose not to take up the bill. Yet, on the final day of the legislative session on Thursday, Democratic House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro moved to reconsider the legislation.
Oshiro had previously said that he would not bring the civil unions bill to a vote, but after having acted on every other bill that had been introduced this year, he used this as a last opportunity to return to H.B. 444. Previously, Gov. Lingle had urged the House to give other legislation priority, warning that she would not look favorably on the bill if they passed civil unions ahead of other legislation such as economic reform and the like. That issue removed, Oshiro chose to press ahead.
Passage of the bill, which has been hailed as "historic", was no small feat though. It required a series of four votes, the first to suspend legislative rules, the second to bring the measure back to the House floor for a vote, the third to then approve the Senate amendments on the bill and lastly a fourth to pass the bill itself.
The Senate amendments that needed to be voted on included a measure that would grant the right of civil unions to both same-sex couples andopposite-sex couples. This was added to the bill to try and assuage accusations that the bill discriminated against heterosexual couples, which was one of the early criticisms opponents had levied at the bill to try and prevent it passing. The amendments were adopted 31-20.
Gov. Lingle now has 45 days to approve or veto the bill. While the final vote in the Senate was enough to override a veto, the House fell just short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Should the governor veto, lawmakers can return to the issue in the House and Senate during a one-day override session in July, but this seems unlikely given the controversial nature of the bill.
It also seems unlikely that Lingle will actually sign the bill into law. As stated above, she previously urged lawmakers to not to take up the legislation. However, she could allow the bill to become law without her signature, which, given that she will not be seeking another term in office, might seem an acceptable alternative.
Speaking to the Associated Press, Blake Oshiro said: "We'll have to wait and see what she is going to do. I would strongly encourage her to take a serious look at the issue. ... It's not about marriage, it's just about equality."
There is a further reason for Lingle to allow the legislation to pass. Following the House deciding to not take up the bill earlier in year, Lambda Legal and the ACLU announced that they would sue the State for failing to grant civil unions, saying that this violates the guarantee that Hawaii’s constitution makes to give equal rights and responsibilities to everyone, a right which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii in 1996 as being applicable to sexuality and legal recognition of same-sex unions, though they did not specify that "marriage" itself had to be the vehicle through which to confer those rights.
In a backlash, the now infamous federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted as a direct result of the court case as it was feared that the Supreme Court ruling might force other states to recognize marriage equality as well.
Hawaii’s constitution was amended in 1998 so as to allow the legislature to enact its own state level DOMA and restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. In late 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, thus preventing same-sex marriages in the state.
However while same-sex couples could not seek full marriage rights, the lesser institution of civil unions was never ruled out, and given that they would provide a full range of state law protections (but not federal benefits, obviously) the ACLU and Lambda Legal claimed that denying same-sex couples the right of civil unions violated the Hawaii constitution as it relegates gay and lesbian families to a lower status that withholds vital protections in several areas of life.
Following Thursday's events, Lambda Legal praised the House for passing the bill but they indicated that if Gov. Lingle chose to veto the legislation, they would still take to the courts to press the issue:
"Today's vote was down to the wire, but it represents years of steady work by Hawaii's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and by concerned state legislators. There's no denying it's been a bumpy road, but like all arduous journeys, it makes the destination that much sweeter. After the seeming death of HB 444 last January, Lambda Legal and our colleagues at the ACLU of Hawaii announced we would file a lawsuit seeking relief for the thousands of couples who need the very real protections civil unions will provide. In fact, we were already on O`ahu this week in final preparations for litigation if the legislature failed to act by today's end of session. We're delighted that, as long as Governor Lingle does not veto the bill, our lawsuit won't be necessary."
According to the Washington Post, Lingle's office has said that she will "carefully review" the bill. 
Comments