Subject: Hawaii Joint Conference Proposals - Call for Feedback
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 22:46:57 -0400 (EDT)

Aloha Folks,

Hawaii Gay Marriage Project is providing the latest information regarding
todays (4-8-97) Senate conferees' proposal for a constitutional amendment
HB117 and modifications to the reciprocal beneficiaries bill HB118.

HB117:

The Senate Conferees offered the latest version which simply states: 

"The legislature shall have the power to regulate the issuance of marriage
licenses."

The senators stated that this met the specific requests of the House for
having the legislature set the definition of marriage.

If passed it would preclude the State Supreme Court from acting on any
definition of marriage as related to other areas of the Constitution.

However as stated in the proposed amendment:

"The constitutional amendment does not impose any restrictions upon access to
legislature, administrationm, or courts on the recognition to others of
rights and benefits afforded married couples. No such rights are intended to
be constitutionally conferred.  But no limitation on the due process or equal
protection rights of any person are imposed."

"The status of marriage as a union between persons of the opposite sex is
constitutionally preserved.  The extension of rights to nontraditional
couples is permitted.

Commentary from this author:

Clearly the amendment would allow the legislature to solely define marriage
as they chose.  However, the rights and benefits which are equally the basis
of the lawsuit would not be jeopardized, just not conveyed through the
institutional of legal marriage if the amendment should pass.

Another interpretation is that all the rights and benefits of marriage that
same-sex couples are seeking would still be addressed under equal protection,
but could not be called legal marriage, thus not recognized by other states
or federal government.

HB118

This bill to establish reciprocal beneficiaries of any two people not allowed
to be legally married would convey some rights to these couples.

The proposal today would:

1.  delete residency requirement which House felt was unconstitutional.
2. Extend health care benefits.
3.  Effective date would be upon passage by legislature and signed by
governor.  AG determined that linking such a measure to potential passage of
an amendment was unconstitutional.
4.  Call for a Legislative Reference Bureau study on the fiscal impact if
rights and benefits adopted for workers compensation, insurance, income tax,
and pre-paid healthcare.

Clearly the proposed amendment would declare only marriage between a male and
a female and would allow equal protection based upon the rights and benefits
alone to be conveyed to same-sex couples, but call it something else.

The HB118 is virtually unconstitutional on the surface based upon sex
discrimination and other legal issues - and parts or all will be stricken or
expanded to eliminate the discrimination.  Eventually it would be expanded to
each and every right of marriage because same-sex couples would have to have
the rights and benefits, but not call it marriage.

Your comments are encouraged to help us see all the implications. Please
respond to this inquiry ASAP.

do good

Bill

Hawai Gay Marriage Project
GLEA Foundation