Read below for further information on how we got to this point.

The bill, which was hailed as being “historic” by supporters, would allow same-sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage that the state can offer. It would also recognize same-sex unions from other states. The bill is also rather unique in that it allows both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples the option of being joined in a civil partnership. 

Hawaii’s Legislature Votes on the Civil Unions Bill
Governor Lingle, a Republican, had urged lawmakers not to take up the legislation because of its derisive nature. The Senate passed the bill in January with a veto proof majority of 18-7, however it seemed that the Democratic controlled House of Representatives would comply with Lingle’s wishes and yet again fail to take up the bill.

Yet in April, on the very last day of the legislative session and with every other bill on the itinerary having been dealt with, Democratic House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro moved to reconsider the legislation. After a series of votes, lawmakers voted 31-20 in favor of the measure, just a few votes short of a veto proof majority.

Lingle then had 45 days to decide whether she wanted to sign the bill into law, allow the bill to pass into law without her signature, or veto it.

Governor Lingle Considers the Civil Unions Bill
With those opposed to civil unions claiming that the bill is just a backdoor way to same-sex marriage, as stated by a resolution Hawaii’s Republican party adopted in May, and proponents saying that they would take legal action if the bill isn’t passed (more on that below) the pressure Lingle has faced has been high. Lingle has made it known that she is firmly against same-sex marriage, and has also expressed reservations over the civil unions bill. However, Lingle told the Washington Post that, nevertheless, she would carefully consider the bill from all sides.

Lingle, who is of the Jewish faith, has since consulted with two rabbis of differing opinions on the civil unions bill to explore the implications of it being passed into law. Her office has also reportedly received letters, emails and phone-calls from members of the public, faith groups and businesses on both sides of the debate, all wanting to offer their opinion. However, throughout the 45 day decision period, Lingle has seemed committed to keeping her cards close to her chest. 

That is until just recently when, in late June, Lingle placed the bill on her potential veto list. That was not to say that this was a definite sign that she would veto, but rather a way for her to put off making a decision until the last possible opportunity.

However it seems that, by Monday, Lingle had made a decision when she told reporters:

“I really thought about this [the civil unions bill] more than I thought about any other piece of legislation and any other issue that’s faced society.

“I don’t know the exact number but I think it’s running 60-40 against but as I’m going to talk about tomorrow — that isn’t what helped me to make a decision on this it was really the depth of feeling on both sides — so I look forward to sharing that with everybody tomorrow.”

Drawing a conclusion from these words might be difficult, but Lingle, who will not be seeking another term as governor, will have had to carefully consider the long term ramifications of her decision as well.

ACLU and Lambda Legal Lawsuit over Hawaii’s Civil Unions
Fearing that, once again, lawmakers would fail to take up the civil unions bill this year, the ACLU together with Lambda Legal announced that they would pursue legal action and sue the state for failing to grant the rights of marriage that the Hawaii Supreme Court had ruled in 1993 could not be denied same-sex couples.

From the Lamda Legal press release:

Hawai’i's constitution was amended in 1998 to allow the Legislature to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, which it has done. This means same-sex couples cannot sue for full equality through marriage. Although civil unions are a lesser status, they would provide a full range of state law protections and duties to gay and lesbian couples, such as relief from unfair state taxation of job-provided health insurance for family members, clear duties to pay child support and alimony as spouses must, protection of the family home against nursing home costs as spouses receive, and other vital protections. The current “reciprocal beneficiaries” system not only fails to provide many basic rights but also sends a harmful message that the state views same-sex couples as less worthy of rights and protections.

“Civil unions offer essential protections but they are old news these days,” said Lois Perrin, Legal Director of the ACLU of Hawaii. “It’s shameful that Hawaii again validates discrimination — another blot on our history of diversity and fair treatment of all people. Once again, lawmakers’ continued failure to support what’s fair and right will leave many constituent families vulnerable under the current reciprocal beneficiary laws.”

Lambda Legal’s Pizer added, “Thanks to the persistent work of Equality Hawaii and the Human Rights Campaign, the legislators were well aware of how urgently Hawai’i's lesbian and gay residents need the protections of civil unions. Since the reciprocal beneficiary system was created more than a decade ago, it’s inflicted a daily ‘death-by-a-thousand-cuts’ of insults, discrimination and legal vulnerability for gay people in this state. It relegates them to a lower status that withholds vital protections in areas ranging from parenting to financial stability. We simply can’t stand by passively observing any more.”

When the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill, Lambda Legal praised the decision but the group also emphasized that, should Lingle veto the legislation and the Legislature fail to reconvene and vote to override (something which looks unlikely given how difficult it was to get them to vote in the first place), the court action would still go ahead. As such, Lingle’s decision may not be the final word on this issue but rather the start of yet another legal battle over same-sex unions in Hawaii, a dispute that has been going for well over a decade now.

I will update you on Lingle’s decision when news becomes available.

Related Reading:

• Find out who voted in favor of the civil unions bill here.
• Read more on the Supreme Court case Baehr v. Miike which brought the issue of marriage equality to the foreground in Hawaii and the U.S. 

Care2 Petition:

• Repeal DOMA, support the Respect for Marriage Act.