| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
 | 1997: Legislative Activity |
| 1998: Constitutional Amendment referendum |
| 1999: Hawaii Supreme Court nixes same-sex marriage |
Click below to visit one of our sponsors:
Legislative Activity, 1997 Session
At the opening of the 1997 session on 1997-JAN-17, Speaker of the House Joe Souki said that "The House will propose a constitutional amendment to permit the Legislature, rather than the courts to resolve this [marriage] issue...At the same time, certain benefits and rights will be made available to couples who are legally prohibited from marrying one another."
On 1996-JAN-21, the Judiciary Committee voted 12-1 in favor of passing bill HB 117 to the house. It is titled "A Bill for an act Proposing a Constitutional Amendment Relating to Marriage." It would amend the constitution of Hawaii to define marriage as involving one man and one woman. During hearings, Jon Van Dyke, a law professor from the University of Hawaii testified that a constitutional amendment that denied a specific benefit to a specific group of adults might be itself unconstitutional. This proposed constitutional amendment is ironic. A main purpose of any constitution in a democracy is to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority. This amendment would oppress a minority who want nothing more than to have the same rights as everyone else. A lawyer testified to the committee that they must "legislate and therefore impose morality on the public." This was argued on the basis that "gays and lesbians are immoral" and that the senators should only enact laws based on "morality." In 1997-MAR this same lawyer, representing the owners of a number of "hostess" bars, told senators that they cannot "legislate their morality on the public." Some hostess bars are sites for heterosexual prostitution and drug dealing.
The Committee rejected the argument of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the existing marriage laws sexually discriminated against gays and lesbians. They commented that the "judicial branch of government has continued to assert an interpretation of our State Constitution which is both unprecedented in judicial history and clearly contradictory to the intent of the framers of our Constitution." The committee vote was 9 in favor, 3 in favor with reservation and 1 opposed.
The Committee also approved bill HB118 "A Bill for an Act Relating to Unmarried Couples," which would allow unmarried adults to have their relationship recognized. Their report stated:
"Your Committee finds that when illness, death or financial reverses strike only one party to such a relationship these individuals lack the protection that long-established legal doctrines afford married couples under the same circumstances.
Your Committee finds that it is appropriate to address the concerns of those couples by creating a legal structure for reciprocal beneficiaries.
Because this structure is not available to those couples who can legally marry, it does not threaten to undermine marriage between couples of the opposite sex.
Your Committee believes that this measure, in providing for the right to hospital visitation and the right to make health care decisions for the other party, the right to hold property as tenants by the entireties, inheritance rights, and the right to sue for wrongful death, will be of substantial benefit to many people in our community.
At the committee hearings:
| University of Hawai`i law Professor has said a state constitutional amendment denying a benefit for a specific group of people could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. |
| Janice Judd of the group "Stop Promoting Homosexuality" said that "Some countries cut off their [Gay] heads. We don't do that. What more do they want?" [An easy question to answer: they want equality] |
The Committee vote was 4 in favor, 9 in favor with reservation and 0 opposed.
The House has proposed a constitution amendment that would read:
"Statutes, regulations, laws, rules, orders, decrees and legal doctrines that define or regulate marriage, the parties to marriage, or the benefits of marriage shall not be deemed in violation of this section of any other section of this Constitution by virtue of a limitation of the marriage relationship to the union of only one man and one woman."
The house has proposed a companion "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill which would guarantee gay and lesbian couples four specific rights: hospital visitation, joint property ownership, inheritance rights and the right to sue for wrongful death.
The Senate bill proposes a constitution amendment that would read:
"The state shall have the power to regulate and define the institution of marriage, including the reservation of marriage to couples of the opposite sex; provided that this reservation shall be effective only if the laws of the state ensure that the application of this reservation does not deprive any person of civil rights on the basis of sex."
This would give about 200 rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples benefits. They include state worker's health and death benefits accruing to a "life partner," the ability to file joint state tax returns, workers' compensation benefits and criminal victims' rights, family leave and other rights.
A Joint Conference Committee of the house and senate met on 1997-MAR-3 to promote their own versions of the bills.
On about April Fools' Day, the House offered a new constitutional amendment:
"The Legislature shall have the power to reserve the legal recognition of the marriage relationship, and its attendant rights, benefits and burdens to couples of the opposite sex."
They would also add one more protection for gay & lesbian couples to their companion bill: they would require health insurers to offer family coverage for "reciprocal beneficiaries." Reciprocal beneficiaries are couples--including gay and lesbian couples--who can't marry.
On APR-9 the House's newest proposed constitutional amendment was:
"The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples."
But the House refused to discuss a compromise on the "Reciprocal Beneficiaries" bill.
Very early in the morning of APR-12, the talks collapsed. The self-imposed deadline of APR-11 had passed.
During the evening of March 16, they met again and allegedly reached a compromise. They agreed:
| to place a Constitutional Amendment on the 1998-NOV ballot:
| ||||||||||
| to vote on a second bill to give reciprocal beneficiaries a few of the privileges that
are currently restricted to married couples:
|
They total at least 50 out of the hundreds of privileges granted to opposite sex married couples. The Senate passed bill HB-118 by a vote of 22 to 3 on APR-21 which authorized the privileges; the House passed it on APR-29. This "Reciprocal beneficiary Law" took effect on 1997-JUL-1. As of 1997-AUG-13, 172 Hawaiian couples have registered under the act.
The House and Senate also passed bill HB-117 proposing the amendment to the constitution.
Assuming that the voters approve the amendment on General Election Day, the earliest that the Hawaiian legislature can implement a ban on same-sex marriages would be during its 1999 sitting.
Groups that oppose equal access to marriage for all, often quote polls that show that 70% of the people are opposed to same-gender marriage. What is rarely discussed is the only poll that asked whether the Constitution of Hawaii should be changed to prevent same-gender couples from marrying. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin Spring conducted a poll in early 1996 which showed that 51% of the public are in favor of the amendment. Since the margin of error is plus or minus 5%, it appears to be an even split. It is anyone's guess what the result might be at the end of 1998 when an constitutional amendment will be voted on.
Constitutional Amendment Referendum:
On General Election Day in 1998-NOV-3, the people of Hawaii approved the following constitutional question:
"Shall the constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to specify that the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."
This amendment gave the Hawaiian legislature the authority to introduce legislation to ban same-sex marriages. The "no" forces interpreted a that a yes vote as separating a basic human rights issue from the protection of the bill of rights and transfer it to the legislature. The implication is that any minority group could be stripped of their rights in this way in the future. The "yes" forces interpreted an affirmative vote as simply opposing same-sex marriages.
In Support of the Amendment:
| "Save Traditional Marriage '98" (STM 98) was headed by Bill Paul,
formerly of the Hawaii Chamber of Commerce and the former Hawaii Visitors
Bureau. He ran an unsuccessful race as a Republican for the House of Representatives.
The Gay/Lesbian International News Network reported that STM 98 believed that
"allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized under the state constitution would
'undermine' Hawaii's culture, denigrate the family, lead schools to teach that Gay
marriages are as legitimate as heterosexual unions, and jeopardize recognition of Hawaiian
marriages by other states." STM 98 expressed the fear "...that Hawaii's
tourist industry and economy will suffer from the image of becoming the world's 'Gay
wedding and honeymoon capital.'" They ran "vote yes" ads in movie
theatres and on television. Some feature Reggie White, an ordained Christian minister and
Green Bay Packers player. The Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission received many
complaints about illegal fund raising methods of this group. The Commission determined
that campaigning spending laws have been violated. STM 98 listed Saturn of Honolulu, a GM company, as donating $625.00 to fight equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. It turns out that a group of Saturn employees attended a presentation by the author of "Seven Habits of Highly Successful People." They thought they were attending an educational workshop; it was in fact a political fund raiser. They have since distanced themselves from STM 98. Their VP and General Manager wrote: "...our company policy is to show respect to every individual in action, voice, and spirit. We believe in including, not excluding, people. We advocate for people, for all people, without prejudice or discrimination of any kind. At Saturn of Honolulu, we are constantly reminding ourselves of these principles as part of our effort to 'do it right.' " They are considering "legal remedies with 'class action' on the grounds of misrepresentation." 7 | ||||||||||
| The Kaua'i Ethics Board asked the Attorney General of Hawaii to investigate fraud or improprieties by Hawaii's Future Today (HFT) and Save Traditional Marriage. It is alleged that the two groups combined to solicit funds under false pretenses by sponsoring a political fund raiser (described above) disguised as an educational seminar. HFT's lawyer claims that no fraud was involved; letters to the attendees clearly stated that their checks should be made out to STM 98. | ||||||||||
| Parishioners of the Star of the Sea Roman Catholic parish organized a group: Pro-Family Hawaii. Its mandate is "to support and strengthen traditional family life in Hawaii and oppose that which threatens or weakens the family." They named four major concerns: promiscuity, abortion, euthanasia and attempts to legalize same-sex marriages. They are concerned that "Individual rights run amok can cause great harm to other individuals and, in particular, to families. There has to be a balance between individual rights and community rights. We cannot just sit back and allow a few to impose their morals on us." As with other groups which oppose extending equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians, they did not specify exactly how such marriages will harm existing families. 9 | ||||||||||
| Hawaii Family Forum is rumored to be linked to a well known Colorado Fundamentalist Christian group, Focus on the Family. They began to run radio ads in 1998-JUL. The Campaign Spending Commission is investigating the claim that the Forum's ads are political not educational. If this is upheld, the group would have to disclose its financial sources. | ||||||||||
| Hawaii Christian Coalition is affiliated with Dr. Pat Robertson's Christian
Coalition of Chesapeake Virginia. 11 They cited a number of reasons
why marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals:
They offered the opportunity for their readers to give money and thereby "keep the world from becoming more corrupted by evil! ...We must hate what God hates!" To their credit, they also say: "We must love the sinner, but hate the sin! " | ||||||||||
| Support was also nearly universal among Hawaii's Roman Catholic, Mormon and Fundamentalist congregations. |
Opposing the Amendment:
| Many organizations opposes the constitutional amendment and convention. They included many religious groups, such as the American Friends Service Committee, Church of the Crossroads, First Unitarian Church of Honolulu, Hawaii Association of International Buddhists, Hawaii Ecumenical Coalition, and Temple Bet Shalom. Also included are dozens of clergy from Baptist, Buddhist, Congregational, Episcopal, Jewish, Lutheran, Metropolitan Community Church, Society of Friends (Quakers), Religious Science, United Methodist Church, Unity, and Unitarian Universalist faith groups. 6 |
| "Protect our Constitution" is a grass-roots organization that has been formed to defend "the rights guaranteed by our Constitution for all citizens. We believe that our constitutional rights form a foundation of fairness, acceptance, and equality that lies at the heart of Hawaii's spirit of aloha." (Aloha is a unique word with no comparable English translation. It includes such concepts as love, solidarity, support, tolerance, understanding. Hawaii is referred to as the "Aloha State.") |
| Marriage Project - Hawaii has spearheaded the court cases which led to the circuit court 1997 decision. They continue to be active in the promotion of gay and lesbian marriages. Tracey Bennett, their former lobbyist said that she expects only "a limited amount" of national gay rights group funds will come to Hawaii. She said: "The Hawaii Constitution grants equal rights to all people. It should not be amended casually." |
| Dan Foley is the attorney who represents three couples who are seeking marriage licenses. Before the NOV-3 vote, he said that if the amendment is passed, it will turn the gay/lesbian marriage issue "into a political football that will come back into the Legislature every two years. The only way to end this debate is to defeat this initiative. Otherwise, people are going to be constantly running on it. It'll be around forever." |
About 69% of the voters approved the amendment. Kelly Rosati, executive director of the Hawaii Family Forum, said that "The very confusing nature of the question and the very confusing and some would say deceptive nature of the advertising combined to make the outcome less certain than it should have been. [In the ad campaign] they compared a yes vote to return to the days of Japanese internment and they said a yes vote was a threat to a woman's right to abortion. They talked about every issue imaginable except the legalization of homosexual relationships."
Supreme court nixes same-sex marriage
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on 1999-DEC-9 that the state constitutional amendment that the voters approved in 1998 mooted the court case Baehr v. Anderson. This means that the constitutional amendment over-rules the section of the Hawaii constitution that forbids sexual discrimination. Gays and lesbians will not be able to marry.
However, the 1996 decision by Hawaii First Circuit Judge Kevin S. C. Chang still stands. Hawaii civil rights attorney Dan Foley said: "The Court held that its hands were tied with regard to marriage licenses but left in tact its holding that denial of the protections that come with marriage violates the constitution. We now look to the legislature to end the Catch-22 that links protections to marriage then tells same-sex couples they may not marry."
In the future, a series of lawsuits are expected which will gradually win for gay and lesbian couples many individual marriage benefits now reserved for opposite-sex couples.
Evan Wolfson, Director of the Marriage Project for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, commented: "Raw power politics and the fierce, sustained campaign of our opponents prevented us from achieving full equality in this century. Even so, this case has left us in a transformed position." He referred to a recent poll that found two-thirds of all Americans now believe that gay people will eventually win the freedom to marry.
References
- Michael Johnson, "The Honolulu Covey Seminar / Political Action Committee ??," an open letter dated 1998-MAR-24. Available at: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/hawaii/marriage.update/
- Marriage Project - Hawaii has a home page at: http://www.xq.com/hermp/
- Form letter from Pro-Family Hawaii at P.O. Box 10892, Honolulu, Hawaii 96816-0892 to "Brothers and Sisters in Christ," 1997-MAR. A copy is at: http://www.xq.com/hermp/03-20-97.html
- Gay/Lesbian International News Network, "Current Gay News," at: http://www.glinn.com/news/current.htm
- Hawaii Christian Coalition has a home page at: http://www.hi-christian.com/home-page.htm
Copyright © 1996 to 1999 incl., and 2001 by Ontario
Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 1997-JUL-11
Latest update: 2001-DEC-2
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
