It appears at the time of this writing that Hawai‘i will join a handful of states that provide for civil unions. The centerpiece of work by this session of our state Legislature has been the passage by both chambers of
It appears at the time of this writing that Hawai‘i will join a handful of states that provide for civil unions. The centerpiece of work by this session of our state Legislature has been the passage by both chambers of bills authorizing and governing civil unions between same sex partners. Following reconciliation of minor differences, Governor Neil Abercrombie has advised he will sign the bill. As is true for all measures that impact our beliefs it is controversial.
Some historical perspective may be useful. As is evident from its founding documents — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — our country was formed with the religious orientation of the Judeo-Christian culture. In earlier days marriage was a religious ceremony by which before God a man and a woman vowed to live together. And the legitimacy of offspring was recognized. But by the outset of our nation it was also a statutory estate with limitations arising out of the culture. Among these were restraints on marriages within certain degrees of consanguinity, prohibition of bigamy or other plural marriages, age requirements and some jurisdictions had laws against miscegenation.
The one dominant characteristic that was universal was that the union would be between a man and a woman.
With the development of our society, laws on other subjects impinged on the marital condition. About one hundred years ago federal income tax laws which conferred favorable treatment on the married and the estate tax law granted marital deductions. Inheritance laws clarified the passage of property for married persons. Community property laws governed in many places co-ownership of property by married persons.
Other forms of cohabitation were not similarly accommodated. In recent years the sexual orientation of gay and lesbian persons was increasingly accepted as permissible and it became appreciated that provisions were lacking to provide unions between members of the same sex with rights comparable to those enjoyed by the traditionally married. So with the aid of an active and vocal lobby legislation is arising to provide a “most favored nations” status to this group. Most people would, I think, find this action to be reasonable. But an important problem remains that no similar accommodation is also being offered to other cohabiting units. Should not parity rights be considered for a child caring for an aged parent or two spinster sisters living together? Is it not an instance of one group with a vigorous organization achieving its objective while others in a similar position are unable to benefit?
The situation was recently amusingly impacted by the well publicized remark by Barbara Bush, the daughter of our former president George W. Bush, that “everyone should have the right to marry the one they love”. Almost every major word in that utterance presents perhaps unintended problems. Apparently Ms. Bush would believe, for example, that a mother should have the right to marry her newly born baby or that a woman should be able to marry the husband of another woman. It is an instance of a doubtless sincere remark being trashed because of its too comprehensive nature.
Probably, though, the principal deterrent for most people to accepting civil unions for same sex couples is that that status is typically regarded by those achieving it as a stepping stone to a recognition of the union as a “marriage”. A civil union can be reconciled by many people as involving only an adjustment of legal rights, but for many others conferral of marital status to same sex couples is offensive to historical cultural and religious beliefs.
Granting marital status to cohabitation by same sex couples is deeply disturbing to persons with strong religious beliefs as their scripture proclaims such relationships as profane. Logical barriers arise also with those who believe that marriage is primarily intended for procreation and assuring a stable family environment for the children and who are not comfortable that such a status will occur or can be achieved in a same sex arrangement. It is also to be noted that a state law will not change the existing discriminations favorable to traditional marriages in federal taxation and entitlements. It may further be observed that the civil union law would, at least in concept, be inconsistent with the action by Hawaiian voters in 1993 in their lopsided adoption of a defense of marriage constitutional amendment.
Assuming, as seems reasonable, that the proposed civil unions bill will be adopted, it will be interesting to follow to watch the future struggle by the same sex union proponents. Almost certainly there will be a movement here for approval of same sex marriage and we shall see whether an activist minority pursuing their target of “equality” will be able to override the nearly 70 percent of the 1993 voters who defended the historic marriage sacrament. The equality struggle will not be considered ended by the gay and lesbian movement until they obtain action on their issues from our federal government. The short term prospects for any action by Congress, however, do not seem bright. Congressional attention these days rests on other, perhaps more important, matters.
Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
