At some point in their lives, most Americans have studied history. In so doing, we inevitably learn something that we previously did not know. We study and embrace history, erect memorials regarding it, and record it in the hopes of avoiding having it repeat itself. When we need a glimpse of the future, we need only to look to our past. Let’s embark on a history lesson with regard to the great Hawaii debate over “civil unions.”
As a hot political topic in Hawaii, everyone should be asking themselves and the legislature, why enact a civil unions bill? What do we hope to achieve? What’s the ultimate goal?
Well, not much is left to speculation.
A Jan. 24 The Honolulu Advertiser article reported that “a new group, the Family Equality Coalition...has quietly been building support for civil unions.... Alan Spector, a social worker and co-chair of the Family Equality Coalition, said the long-term goal is to legalize same-sex marriage.” That approach is confirmed by recent history elsewhere.
Wherever they are enacted, so-called “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” have been nothing other than an alternative way of enacting “marriage” for same-sex couples. If the Hawaii Legislature chooses to drag within its walls the innocuous-looking Trojan horse of civil unions, it needs to understand the danger hidden inside of it: same-sex “marriage.”
The civil unions bill states, “Partners to a civil union...shall have all of the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law...as are granted to spouses in a marriage....” It also states, “A civil union, domestic partnership, or marriage of two persons of the same sex...shall be recognized as a civil union in this State....”
Now consider the state of California, where the legislature enacted “domestic partnerships” that provided same-sex couples the full rights and benefits of marriage. Was that good enough? No. How about New Jersey and Vermont, which both did the same thing as California? Nope, not good enough for same-sex advocates there, who now demand legislatively imposed same-sex “marriage.”
The same demands are being made in Maine, Washington, and New Hampshire, states which also provided legislatively enacted domestic partnership and civil union schemes. Most importantly, in both California and Connecticut, the existence of full domestic partnership and civil union schemes provided a platform for those states’ supreme courts to judicially impose same-sex “marriage.”
Thus, history shows us two important things: (1) that civil unions are wholly unacceptable to those who demand them; and (2) that the existence of civil unions has twice led to the imposition of same-sex “marriage” via judicial fiat.
The Hawaii Supreme Court in 1993 first assisted in the imposition of same-sex “marriage” in just this way. The fallout from what the court did would have quickly brought about same-sex “marriage” had the people of Hawaii not adopted a constitutional amendment that gave power to the legislature “to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Then Hawaii enacted the reciprocal beneficiaries law, which opens up benefits to all who do not qualify for marriage. That was a fair and balanced response.
But while the current reciprocal beneficiaries law is open to all who are not permitted to marry, the proposed civil unions law is not. The definition excludes a man taking care of his sick grandmother, or a woman taking care of her adult brother with Down Syndrome. Why are they less deserving of benefits than unmarried persons in civil unions? The activists clamor for “family diversity,” but apparently only in the way they wish.
Through the passage of a civil unions bill, the Hawaii Legislature is setting the stage for the extension of “marriage” to same-sex couples. The history of this process in other states should not be ignored, unless the people of Hawaii want to be caught off guard. No one should allow themselves to be fooled and let history repeat itself...again.
James Hochberg is an Attorney in Honolulu, Hawaii, who can be reached at mailto:jim@jameshochberglaw.com
