Gov. Linda Lingle, an avowed advocate for equal rights, often emphasizes the importance of diversity (cultural and otherwise) in Hawai'i.

In March, Gov. Lingle expressed her support for a housing bill that would prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. In April 2004 and 2005, Gov. Lingle declared June "Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Bisexual Pride Month," proclaiming, "the people of Hawai'i are united in their support for and recognition of the rights of all citizens."

We applauded Gov. Lingle for her public declarations supporting civil rights for all of Hawai'i's citizens — particularly her support for the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community. A principled act in this day and age; yet no less than what we would expect from any public official sworn to uphold our system of law, which is premised upon equal treatment for all people.

Therefore, we are deeply disappointed that Gov. Lingle intends to veto two significant civil rights bills prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression and sexual orientation in employment and housing.

The first bill, House Bill 1450, would clarify our existing Fair Employment law and provides that discrimination based on gender identity or expression constitutes a form of sex discrimination. The second bill, House Bill 1715, would amend the state's housing discrimination statute to add sexual orientation as a protected basis and, also, would clarify that "sex" under our Fair Housing law includes gender identity or expression.

State legislators passed both bills after full public hearings.

Now the governor opposes both bills. Her office says she intends to veto the housing and employment amendments because these bills "pose ... complex issues of application and enforcement given the ambiguous and vague nature of its language and ... fail ... to provide ... an objective standard by which to judge and determine if discrimination has occurred."

Far from being "ambiguous and vague," these bills clarify that all persons are protected from discrimination because of "sex" and "sexual orientation" under our state's Fair Employment and Fair Housing laws and would encompass Hawai'i's gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual individuals — people to whom the governor earlier expressed her support in their continuing struggle for equal treatment under the law. So, what is really going on?

Given that the right to discriminate against certain citizens and deny them access to housing or employment because of "who they are" is inconsistent with the values we share in Hawai'i, Gov. Lingle's withdrawal of support to correct this inequality because of "ambiguous and vague" language is puzzling.

First, recognizing the 10-year struggle to achieve equality in housing, in March 2005, Gov. Lingle publicly stated her support for the housing bill: "I think anything that reduces discrimination of any kind is a good thing."

We believe this is the bill where there was a compromise that was reached. The compromise reached between supporters and detractors of the housing bill is not perfect, but it is nonetheless significant and long overdue.

Second, throughout the legislative hearing process, Gov. Lingle's administration did not raise any concerns regarding "ambiguous and vague" language in either the Fair Housing or Employment bills — with good reason. In 2003, Gov. Lingle allowed a bill adding gender identity or expression to Hawai'i's hate crime laws to pass into law without her signature.

The definition of "gender identity or expression" under our hate crime laws is identical to the definition contained in the Fair Housing and Employment bills. Just as our current laws protect a person from being a victim of violence based on gender identity or expression, a person should not be denied a home or job because of the person's gender identity or expression.

Protection for gender identity or expression in our Fair Employment and Housing statutes is the "right and just" thing to do. Six states — California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island — have done so. None of these states' laws have crumbled under the weight of "ambiguous and vague" language.

Additionally, many American corporations believe preventing discrimination along these lines is a good idea, as well as good business, and have incorporated "gender identity or expression" into their written non-discrimination policies.

The Human Rights Campaign, in its 2004 report "Transgender Issues in the Workplace: A Tool for Managers," identifies at least 35 Fortune 500 companies that have done so, including IBM, Apple Computer, AT&T, Goldman Sachs and Capital One Financial Corp. These companies recognize that progressive work policies attract the best and brightest employees in an increasingly global and diverse marketplace.

Therefore, we strongly encourage Gov. Lingle to rescind her veto notice. Equal access to housing and employment are basic human rights. Justice and equality for all of Hawai'i's citizens demand that she sign these bills into law or allow them to pass into law without her signature.

Eric K. Yamamoto is a law professor; Shirley N. Garcia is staff attorney with the state Civil Rights Commission; Carrie Ann Shirota and Kim Coco Iwamoto are attorneys and civil rights activists. They wrote this commentary as individuals, not in any official capacity.