EDITORIAL
Gay marriage battle déjà vu for Hawai'i
As the presidential campaign picks up momentum, we suspect many candidates will be agonizing over what to say about Massachusetts' high court ruling allowing gays to wed.
Well, you can wring your hands over how gay marriage will destroy civilization as we know it. Or you can approach the Bay State's same-sex marriage ruling as a symbolic step toward equality for all.
Marriage is, after all, a legal contract that addresses the disposition of property, visitation privileges at hospitals, inheritance, making medical decisions for one's partner in emergencies, bereavement and sick leave, and shared benefits like Social Security and Medicare.
As a practical matter, it's a lot easier to extend these rights to all committed couples than to concoct complicated means to exclude them from marriage without violating their civil rights.
With all due respect to those who condemn gay behavior and marriage on moral or religious grounds, it's simply logical that committed couples, regardless of their race or gender, become a stabilizing force in society.
We're fully aware that polls show the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. A redrawing of the boundaries of this time-honored yet oft-abused institution will not happen overnight.
Just to recap, Massachusetts' highest court struck down the state's ban against same-sex marriage, rejecting the government's argument that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.
The court stopped short of issuing marriage licenses to the plaintiffs, and gave the Legislature six months to tweak state law so that gay couples can wed.
The response? Heavy artillery. Defiant lawmakers have begun clearing the path to a state constitutional amendment that would strictly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
And on the national front, conservative lawmakers have threatened to push for a U.S. constitutional amendment that would forbid states to allow same-sex unions.
The unfortunate thing here is the backlash against gay marriage has tended to defuse or obscure other well-intentioned efforts to win equal rights for homosexuals, as Hawai'i has learned.
The battle started in the Islands in 1990 when three gay couples sued for the right to wed after they were denied state marriage licenses. The Hawai'i Supreme Court found in their favor that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state's constitutional protections against discrimination and that the couples should get their trial.
In 1996, Circuit Judge Kevin Chang rejected the state's arguments that same-sex marriages would harm children. The issue of how to satisfy the court's constitutional concerns was punted to the Legislature, which crafted an overly broad and inadequate "reciprocal beneficiaries" law that expired in 1999.
Meanwhile, an intense Save Traditional Marriage Campaign got under way. In 1998, two-thirds of Hawai'i voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow the Legislature to define marriage as a compact between a man and a woman. Similar efforts to block same-sex marriage have since succeeded elsewhere across the nation.
But we're not so sure that future generations will maintain what the "traditional values" movement calls a "protective hedge around the institution of marriage." Already, younger generations reared on less traditional values define marriage and family differently than the early baby boomers.
Naturally, it will take time for heterosexuals to surrender the name of "marriage." But that doesn't mean we shouldn't press forward gently but firmly, to bring everyone under the shelter of equal rights.
