Hawaii governor vetoes civil unions bill

1172

•  
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

(0 votes, average 0 out of 5)

Written by Lisa Neff, Staff writer
Jul 14, 2010

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, R, at the christening of the USS Hawaii. – Photo: Courtesy GD

For the record

“With such broad support from the legislators, who are the elected officials closest to the public, and the consistent results of the professional polls showing broad support for civil unions as a civil rights issue, we are deeply disappointed that the governor ignored the will of the people and vetoed the bill. We are determined, no matter how many sessions and election cycles it takes, to achieve full recognition for our families.”

– Jo-Ann Adams, chair of the GLBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii

“Americans nationwide share in the disappointment and outrage of thousands of Hawaii’s families who will not receive equal treatment under law. Thankfully, there are local advocates as well as leaders in the Hawaii legislature who will continue to further the cause of equality.”

– Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign

“Today, on July 6, 2010, Gov. Linda Lingle denied social justice when she vetoed HB444 for civil unions. Her denial is a violation of the integrity of her office and a violation of her oath of office. Gov. Lingle’s denial of equal rights, benefits and protections for one segment of our citizens is a denial for all of our citizens of Hawaii.”

– the Rev. Carolyn M. Golojuch, president of PFLAG-Oahu

“Two separate and independent economic studies, a poll conducted by a nationally recognized polling organization and the thousands of residents who vocalized their support of the bill to the governor and the legislature over the past two years makes clear that the passage of HB444 is good economic sense, is socially just, and is supported by the people of Hawaii. The LGBT community’s fight for equality in Hawaii will continue.”

– Tara O’Neill, president of Pride Alliance Hawaii

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle said no to civil unions July 6, vetoing legislation that would have provided civil unions to same-sex couples in Hawaii because she said voters should directly decide the issue.

“Today is a sad day for the thousands of Hawaii families who remain second-class citizens,” said Alan Spector, legislative affairs co-chair for Equality Hawaii. “We’re disappointed and outraged that same-sex families will not be treated equally under Hawaii law, but vow to come back and fight this fight another day.”

Now Lingle and the state face the threat of a civil suit.

Lingle went down to the wire on her decision – July 6 was the last day for her to veto the civil unions bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without her signature. The legislation would have allowed couples – same-gender and opposite-gender – the benefits of a civil marriage.

She eventually decided to veto the measure, along with 32 other bills a press release from her office characterized as “detrimental to public policy and would hinder efforts to expand the economy and create jobs.”

In a statement, Lingle said, “After carefully reviewing each of these bills and weighing the considerable amount of input that we received from the public, I made the decision to not allow these measures to become law. Although the legislature passed bills they believe are important, I have the final responsibility to ensure that any new law is constitutional, fiscally responsible and in the best interest of the state.”

Lingle also issued an explanation of her decision to veto the civil unions legislation.

“I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name,” Lingle said. “However, I want to be clear that my personal opinion is not the basis for my decision against allowing this legislation to become law. Neither is my veto based on my religious beliefs or on the political impact it might have on me or anyone else of either political party in some future election. I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii.”

Lingle took issue with how the bill reached her desk – passed, she said, on the last day of the session, at the 11th hour, via a suspension of rules “after legislators led the public to believe that the bill was dead, was wrong and unfair to the public they represent.”

Referring to the correspondence she received on both sides of the issue, she said, “In the end, it wasn’t the persuasiveness of public debates, the soundness of legal arguments, or the volume of letters and e-mails that convinced me to reach this decision. It was the depth of emotion felt by those on both sides of the issue that revealed to me how fundamental the institution of marriage is to our community. It is as fundamental to those who support marriage between two people of the same gender as it is to those who support marriage only between one man and one woman.

There is no indication lawmakers will attempt to override Lingle’s veto. Nor is there any indication that an initiative on civil unions will be put to a vote in Hawaii soon.

But the issue is likely to reach a judge.

The day Lingle vetoed the bill, the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal announced plans to sue.

Jennifer Pizer, director of Lambda’s national marriage project, said Lingle caved into a disinformation campaign. “This was a sad surrender to political expediency that does not support business or family interests, but damages them,” said Pizer.

Attorneys with the civil liberties groups began working on a court challenge months ago, when the Hawaii House tabled the civil unions bill in January and the legislation seemed doomed in 2010.

“We’re obviously disappointed that Gov. Lingle has, once again, used her power to deny the people of Hawaii their civil rights,” said ACLU attorney Laurie Temple. “Luckily for the people of Hawaii, however, our constitution prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the governor won’t honor her oath to uphold the constitution, the courts will.”