The state Senate has approved its version of same-sex marriage legislation. One bill calls for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and the other one would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of married couples.
The two bills approved Thursday differ substantially from measures approved two weeks ago by the state House, meaning they will go before a House-Senate conference committee for a compromise.House Speaker Joseph Souki predicted difficult negotiations between the two houses where leaders have vowed to resolve the same-sex marriage controversy quickly, pointing to the public outcry when it wasn't solved last year.
The identical 15-10 Senate roll call votes on both bills followed more than a hour of floor debate, mostly focusing on the bill to put the constitutional amendment before Hawaii's voters in the 1998 general election.
Senate critics stressed that while they support a constitutional amendment, they believe the one proposed by the Senate Judiciary Committee would end up legalizing same-sex marriages.
It would give the state power to limit marriages to couples of the opposite sex as long as the state's laws dealing with marriage do not discriminate on the basis of gender.
Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Matt Matsunaga said that qualification relates to the second bill which spells out the marriage-like benefits for which same-sex couples would be eligible.
Sen. Malama Solomon said the proposed constitutional amendment is "misguided, hasty and ill conceived" with "the potential to destroy the institution of marriage in Hawaii because . . . it is impossible to prove a negative."
Sen. Randall Iwase said the language of the proposed amendment represents no progress from last year when the Senate deadlocked in negotiations with the House to resolve the same-sex marriage issue.
It was generated by a surprising 1993 state Supreme Court ruling that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses without a compelling public interest violated the state Constitution's prohibition on gender discrimination. The case remains on appeal by the state following a state judge's ruling in December that the state had failed to show a compelling interest in denying same-sex couples marriage licenses.
Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley said the Senate's bill accomplishes the preservation of traditional marriages without sacrificing the rights of anyone.
The House's version of the amendment simply to ban same-sex marriages is constitutionally suspect, Chumbley said.
"It can be fairly said that some of the proposals on this issue are aimed solely at abolishing rights won in court by a minority," Chumbley said.
"We firmly believe that the motivation of this is simply to preserve traditional marriage, but if the net effect of our effort is the surgical removal of rights from a very unpopular minority group, we fear that a court could conclude that the Legislature's motive was more a result of fear and hatred than any legitimate governmental interest," he said.
Complaints about the Senate's bill also came from Souki and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Terrance Tom, who said it would mean limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples would be unconstitutional if the courts find any gender discrimination in any marriage-related law.
"The measure passed by the Senate will not reverse the ruling of the Hawaii Supreme Court," Tom said. "If anything, it will place a right to same-sex marriage in the Hawaii Constitution."
The other Senate bill goes well beyond the House's plan for extending some of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, including allowing them to file joint state tax returns and get spouse benefits under the state retirement system.
Souki and Tom later echoed concern raised by Sen. Sam Slom that no information has been provided about the costs to public and private institutions by giving "reciprocal beneficiaries" benefits to same-sex couples.