Hawaii Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill Approved By State Legislature

HONOLULU — Hawaii lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday to allow civil unions for same-sex couples, marking an end to what the governor called an "emotional process" for a longtime battleground in the gay rights movement.

Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie's office said he intends to sign the bill into law within 10 business days. Civil unions would begin Jan. 1, 2012, making the state the seventh in the nation to grant essentially the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

"I'm overjoyed. I'm so relieved. I'm so happy," said Kristin Bacon of Honolulu, who intends to get a civil union with her partner of 15 years. "We're really representing aloha and the aloha spirit with this vote. I'm thrilled."

Bacon was among a crowd of supporters wearing rainbow-colored lei and stickers saying "Equality" as they cheered, hugged and cried for joy after the Senate's 18-5 vote. The House passed the bill last week.

Gay rights advocates praised the vote as a victory for equal rights in a state known for its diversity and tolerance.

Opponents of the measure, many of them Christians, said civil unions erode the concept of the traditional family and could lead to same-sex marriage.

"I feel very grieved for all of us. Now we'll need God even more in our islands," said Stephanie Kon of Honolulu.

Rather than leave the decision to elected lawmakers, she wanted the state to vote on the issue as it did 13 years ago when voters overwhelmingly passed the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment.

The amendment, approved by 69 percent of voters, was a response to a 1993 state Supreme Court decision that nearly legalized gay marriage.

The ruling would have made Hawaii the first state to allow same-sex couples to wed, but it didn't take effect while voters were given a chance to decide.

The "defense of marriage" amendment gave the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, and resulted in a law banning gay marriage in Hawaii but also left the door open for civil unions.

Since then, 29 other states also have enacted defense of marriage amendments.

Five more states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage.

"I have always believed that civil unions respect our diversity, protect people's privacy, and reinforce our core values of equality and aloha," Abercrombie said in a statement released minutes after Wednesday's vote. "For me, this bill represents equal rights for all the people of Hawai'i."

The anxiously awaited civil unions vote came immediately after the Senate confirmed the state's first openly gay Supreme Court justice, Sabrina McKenna.

The Hawaii Legislature also passed a similar civil unions bill last year, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican. She was term-limited from running for election again in November.

The final vote came after years of thousands-strong rallies, election battles and passionate public testimony on an issue that has divided the Rainbow State for nearly 20 years.

"It's been a long time coming. To see it come to fruition is a big day," said David Robins of Honolulu, who also wants full marriage rights for gay couples. "This is the right first step."

___

Online:

SB232: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/

Comments

[Bonnie Brill]

09:25 AM on 02/18/2011

What's truly shameful is that gay loving couples of Hawaii have to wait a year to have any legal recognition of their relationships unlike married heterosexuals who's recognition of their love becomes legal immediately after "I do.."

Standing up (ok, sitting down) for our rights!

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:40 PM on 02/17/2011

And for the right wingers and other assorted haters -on here: care to tell us how legal civil marriage equality will affect YOUR life? Still waiting for answers to that one. Not society, mind you--because to judge on Massachusetts marriage equality it is good for society--but how it will affect YOUR personal life.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:14 PM on 02/18/2011

Still waiting....no answer...could it be bedcause it will not affect a hater's life...other than to make his prejudice less socailly acceptable. I' m not surprised there are no answers. The lame defense of Prop H8 didn't have a leg to stand on, either.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:45 PM on 02/18/2011

*crickets*

[nicholas b]

03:51 PM on 02/17/2011

Yes, a genuine victory and one that did NOT require overturn of DOMA or Obama telling people what to do. He hasn't done a thing to overturn DOMA and probably won't for the next 2 years either. Stop holding your breath.

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:24 PM on 02/17/2011

Sorry, most haters will not accept our marriages in any way unless forced to. I don't give a damn about their bronze age beliefs...I am a citizen and I pay taxes. We need the Supreme Court to say, "Enough with this nonsense. DOMA is unconstitutional and it is OVERTURNED"!

[Bonnie Brill]

09:28 AM on 02/18/2011

Obama telling people what to do?

What do you mean by that? Haven't & aren't the right wingers continuously telling others what they can/can't do if they don't agree?

As for Obama on his campaign promises, well, that's a different story.

Now, excuse me while I roll back under the bus...

Standing up (ok, sitting down) for our rights!

[wereeverywhere]

02:10 PM on 02/17/2011

I'm glad that Hawaii achieved this victory. And here's to the people who worked tirelessly to achieve this advance. But the prize to keep our eyes on remains full recognition at the federal level. Here are some of the benefits denied until that time:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:42 PM on 02/17/2011

Thank you for listing many of the rights that we are denied by DOMA. This is why I fight for marriage equality. The issue of the 1400+ rights and the granting of them to same sex couples affects US, not heterosexuals. Why should I have to make expensive arrangements with a lawyer--arrangements that may or may not be accepted--when with legal civil marriage, I could have them as well?

[VelenoSangue]

02:00 PM on 02/17/2011

"Opponents of the measure, many of them Christians, said civil unions...could lead to same-sex marriage."

People in favor say the same thing, minus what's hidden in the ellipses.

[yogini4]

01:37 PM on 02/17/2011

Now, if Hawaii and the federal government would only grant indigenous status to the Hawaiians.

[happyfella73]

11:52 AM on 02/17/2011

the baby steps are nice...but I am itching for one giant leap for mankind.

[Channa]

10:51 AM on 02/17/2011

I am a straight guy who supports gay rights. My sister in MA is married to a great woman. I celebrate each victory for this cause.
I understand the nothing short of marriage argument but I think that strategically it would be good to shoot for civil unions as a goal. For one thing it would pass the mildly homophobic and moderately religiously intolerant. In other words, it is an achievable goal. This gets you all the legal goals you want: hospital visitation, insurance, inheritance etc.
This only leaves the term "marriage". You are free to have a religious marriage ceremony or any other kind of public marriage ceremony you want. Then you are married in spite of them and further argument against same sex marriage would become frivolous.

[Flip75]

11:46 AM on 02/17/2011

To an extent, yes, but civil unions - especially when parsed out state-by-state, do not actually get us "all the legal goals." There are still ZERO federal benefits associated with civil unions, and any legal protections a couple might enjoy in one of the small handful of states with either marriage equality or this second-class-consolation-prize of civil unions are gone as soon as they cross into a state that doesn't recognize their relationship as valid. This is why the term "marriage" is important, as is the application of the 14th Amendment - it conveys the fact that a gay couple is, legally, no different than a straight couple.

[Channa]

12:27 PM on 02/17/2011

Good points. Hoping this all works out sooner than later.

[VioletDatura]

11:43 PM on 02/17/2011

Thanks for the explanation. Fanned you both, Flip and Channa.

[flyovermark]

12:42 PM on 02/17/2011

I am a straight guy who supports equal rights, and it may surprise many here to learn, that although I don't approve of the lifestyle, I also believe that the state has a responsibility to provide equal protection before the law - and the state is already prohibited from discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. I'll argue till the cows come home that the definition for the "holy estate of marriage" remains "husband and wife", and that "marriage" is a function of religion; but "civil unions" are a function of the state. Civil unions can include whatever couples the "will of the people" consent to allow; it would seem that in Hawaii that will includes same-sex couples.
I agree that the American public is going to have to accept civil unions for same-sex couples eventually, and that they eventually will. I do not agree that they will accept same-sex marriage, or that they should be forced to.

[timx2]

01:21 PM on 02/17/2011

I understand what you are saying but I have some things that I'd like you to take into consideration

1. Civil unions would be ok with me if every straight couple who got married in a court and not a church would agree to call their marriage a civil union. Would you be ok with that?
2. Why is it that a christian same sex couple can have a ceremony in a gay affirming church yet it would not be considered a marriage but at the same time an athiest opposite sex couple can go to the justice of the peace and be married?
3. Would you want anyone to have a say, or a vote in whether or not you have the right to visit your loved one in the hospital, or in the event that you die, who you get to leave your belongings and money too? Why would we let someone vote on whom we make a life with and what status our relationship achieves?

[Jason N]

02:52 PM on 02/17/2011

"but "civil unions" are a function of the state. "

If I walk into the courthouse with a consenting woman of age, and we both fill out the proper paperwork and pay the fee, we'd be married not civil unioned. The state controls marriage, not the church. If you go to a church and have a service you are not considered married under the law until you receive a marriage certificate from the state.

[Bill J4321]

10:43 AM on 02/17/2011

Wonderful.

Now we can be classified as second class ~ on paper!

Thanks, Hawaii. For the legal stamp of disapproval.

[wereeverywhere]

02:03 PM on 02/17/2011

If civil unions are second class, the next step is the separate but equal status of state marriages without federal recognition. Wish we could speed the process to have the full humanity of gays recognized.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:46 PM on 02/17/2011

Not with all the haters out there...we're supposed to be "other" and "less than", all to keep the bigots happy.

[HelloooCanada]

10:31 AM on 02/17/2011

the stock photo for this story should have been the u. hawaii football helmet with the rainbow on it.

well done, hawaii.

[ANuttyReader]

10:30 AM on 02/17/2011

WOOOO HOOOOO

[joelb5000]

10:15 AM on 02/17/2011

As good as this is, we're not stopping until gays get full marriage rights. Anything less is still second class, and under the 14th Amendment, 2nd class is unconstitutional.

[jerry23]

10:11 AM on 02/17/2011

Maybe I am supposed to be content with this measure. It appears that I can now use the main entrance to the restaurant but still can't order from the Grown Ups Menu.

Another day, another bone.

[mandymarleyandme]

11:19 AM on 02/17/2011

a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Would you prefer it had been vetoed again?

[jerry23]

11:48 AM on 02/17/2011

Could tell me the distance between being "satisfied" and being "Equal"? I also seem to get the impression that I should be content and satisfied with being almost equal.

[karmatryk]

10:10 AM on 02/17/2011

I and my partner are in a legal domestic partnership. Personally, being upper middle-aged, dealing with shared properties and health issues, I wouldn't care what you call my relationship as long as it legally got the job done. And that is the problem: it does not. And that is the reason why the anti-gay political interests want to exclude us from the legal definition of a marriage and keep the catagory of civil union: to insure that what we have will never legally or socially be afford the same respect as their unions. As to the first I will demand the legal equality no matter what legally you want to call my relationship; as to the second I have every confidence I can earn that in spite of them.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:53 PM on 02/17/2011

Fanned and faved. This is EXACTLY why so many support civil unions...so that we are separate from their precious marriage...an institution with a 50% failure rate. I agree that they want to make sure we will never have a legal or social standing equal to theirs. So sad that a portion of the American public is still in the status of second-class citizenship.

[Jason N]

10:01 AM on 02/17/2011

"Opponents of the measure, many of them Christians, said civil unions erode the concept of the traditional family and could lead to same-sex marriage."

To the "civil unions are the same and wouldn't be opposed" crowd, here's why it's marriage or nothing.

[Flip75]

10:29 AM on 02/17/2011

No kidding - I've got so many (allegedly) well-meaning Christian friends who give me the tired old "we wouldn't care if you just wouldn't call it marriage," but then they come out at every turn opposed to anything that even looks like it. It's time for them to just admit that they're anti-gay: for them, it's not about a word, and it's not about rights, it's about using their social position to oppress others, and it's got to stop. Practice all the hate you want within your home and church, but keep your misguided mythical beliefs out of civil law.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:57 PM on 02/17/2011

Flip, honey, how I wish that they would! But some quirk in their brain makes them think they have the right to run roughshod over the rights of every group of which they don't approve. These days, it's pretty much Muslims, gays, and the rights of women.

Why should I be denied the right of legal civil marriage because some religious fanantic thinks I am inferior/sinful/whatever?

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:55 PM on 02/17/2011

They lie through their teeth every time that they pull out that tired old chestnut. Sure enough every time a civil union bill is up for a vote, they start in fighting that as well as marriage. And I see no reason to settle for second-class citizenship when they don't want us to have even that.