LIHU‘E — When it comes to House Bill 444 — which would extend the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union — Kaua‘i’s delegation to the Hawai‘i Legislature is split
LIHU‘E — When it comes to House Bill 444 — which would extend the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union — Kaua‘i’s delegation to the Hawai‘i Legislature is split 2-2.
Like the deadlocked Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted 3-3 early Wednesday morning, the island’s lawmakers will likely see the bill pass in coming weeks when the full Senate pushes it through.
If Republican Gov. Linda Lingle does not veto it — spokesperson Russell Pang said in a Wednesday interview Lingle had not yet read the bill and would not be taking a stance on it until after doing so — Hawai‘i would become the fifth state in the nation to allow civil unions.
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage, while Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions. Californians voted in November to overturn a court ruling that allowed gay marriage, but the state still offers domestic partnerships that guarantee the same rights as marriage, according to the Associated Press.
In 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawai‘i voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the state Legislature the power to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples.
Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser said Tuesday that he expected the 25-member senate to pull the bill from committee early next month and said 18 senators, including himself, had expressed support for the bill.
In interviews this week with The Garden Island, state Reps. Roland Sagum, James Tokioka and Hermina Morita explained their votes on the controversial bill, which passed the House earlier this month.
Sen. Gary Hooser, Democrat, Kaua‘i-Ni‘ihau
“I support the passage of House Bill 444,” Hooser said Tuesday. “I see that bill as a matter of civil rights, of equal treatment under the law, and it is not same-sex marriage. It is a contractual relationship between two people. Government should be in the business of contracts and churches should be in the business of marriage.”
Hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted during a 15-hour day of testimony from more than 1,000 citizens, Hooser said he was inclined to vote to pull it to the full Senate if the committee were to vote 3-3 as was expected and as later occurred.
“I think it’s the right thing to do. It’s overdue. It’s a fundamental value to protect the rights of people in the community who have been discriminated against,” he said. “If this bill passes, it means people will be treated equally and I believe that’s my responsibility. It’s in our constitution and this bill would accomplish that.”
Rep. Roland Sagum, Democrat, 16th District
“I am a representative. As a representative, I try to talk to the community and find out and poll them on their position. The community came out overwhelmingly against civil unions,” Sagum, who twice voted against the bill earlier this month, said in an interview Wednesday. “Sometimes it’s difficult, but that’s the job I took and I’m trying to do it to the best of my abilities. I’m just here fighting for the rights and benefits of our people on Kaua‘i.”
The Westside representative said his district is full of family-focused, plantation-oriented, simple Catholic citizens that told him in phone calls and via e-mail they did not support the bill. He said he is trying to respect their feelings.
“My personal response is that I would like to see all people be happy and have equal rights. … This bill could even benefit someone in my own family,” he said. “(But) I’m only the conduit. … Roland Sagum’s feelings do not play into any final decision. I’m doing what the community wants me to do. This issue, like most issues, you have people on both sides and you have to weigh what the greater community is telling you to do. Sometimes it crosses what you believe as an individual.”
When asked how he would feel if the measure passed through the Senate, Sagum said, “I want our citizens to be happy and have access to better healthcare and all the benefits. All people. If that’s the way it happens, then that’s great.”
Rep. Jimmy Tokioka, Democrat, 15th District
“The people in the district that had contacted me and asked me were against the issue. When I went back and I checked the votes for same-sex marriage in 1998, it was 74 percent of the people from my district voted against same sex marriage,” said Tokioka, who also twice voted against the measure earlier this month, in a Tuesday interview.
He added that more than 80 percent of the more than 150 e-mails he received from constituents as of earlier this week expressed opposition to civil unions.
“Those were the indicators I used,” he said. “Every time we deal with issues, I represent my community and I have to make choices that the community feels appropriate for what they want. We have personal feelings, but again, I represent the community and that’s the feedback that I got from the community.”
Asked if representatives ever vote against public opinion if they feel passionate about an issue, Tokioka said, “That happens all the time. You take your personal conviction and it may not reflect the wishes of your district, but there are bills like this, the Superferry and gambling that you’d better make sure you check with the community before you vote.
“Especially on big issues like this, they want to know how you feel,” he said. “This is a big one.”
Rep. Mina Morita, Democrat, 14th District
“I think we can be tolerant and respectful of each other’s rights even though we may differ because of religious points of view,” said Morita, who co-introduced the bill in the House and then helped usher it through committee. “I believe that people can benefit in stable, long-term relationships. If two people have mutual love and respect for each other, that’s all that matters.”
Asked if she had done any informal polling of her constituents or weighed letters or e-mails she’d received when formulating her position, Morita said, “I think this is one issue, because it involves individual rights, it should not be gauged on polling. This isn’t a decision based on popularity. This is a question of civil rights, which government protects.”
“My question to people (who testified against the bill) is ‘how does it affect you?’ It doesn’t affect your lifestyle, it doesn’t affect your rights and privileges. Definitely if I felt people were going to be harmed, I’d be looking at this differently. But I don’t think that’s the case.”
Asked if she felt the imminent passing of the bill was an important moment in state history, Morita said, “I don’t think it’s historic because Hawai‘i has always been a very progressive state in protecting the rights of people and promoting equality.”
• Michael Levine, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 252) or via e-mail at mlevine@kauaipubco.com
