No question about it: The emotional debate at the Legislature over same-sex unions is a lose-lose proposition.

So why are lawmakers focused on this matter when there is so much else on the agenda?

One answer is simply this: When there is no money to hand out for new programs and projects, the Legislature tends to drift into arguments that are off-budget. Civil unions or same-sex marriage fits this category nicely.

Another answer is more metaphysical. Questions such as same-sex marriage, or civil unions, have the unique capacity to engage the attention of our legislators. These are fundamental issues of human rights and human conscience, and lawmakers are pleased to think they have the capacity or ability to resolve the matter.

It seems clear that a majority of the public in Hawai'i is uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. A strong 70 percent majority supported a 1998 state constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

In an earnest attempt at compromise, the Legislature passed a law granting equality of most state services and protections to same-sex couples through a reciprocal beneficiaries law. Not everyone was satisfied.

So now, lawmakers are looking at a bill that would treat civil unions precisely the same as marriage in the state's eyes. That means all the rights — and obligations — of married couples would apply to couples who have entered into a civil union.

Never mind that in the eyes of some activists this bill is still short of a full loaf. It does not recognize "marriage" between two people of the same sex; it simply grants them the same legal status (in Hawai'i) as a married heterosexual couple.

In some ways, it is a decision faced by lawmakers years ago who were asked to decide whether couples of a different race should be married in the state's eyes. That issues has been firmly settled.

So what is a legislator to do? Clearly, the tide of popular opinion is against the idea of civil unions as a proxy for marriage. But the tide of history runs in the other direction. As a legislator, do you vote with contemporary sentiment or do you vote for the future?

In short, lawmakers will have to choose between voting for today or voting for tomorrow. That's a tough decision for someone who has an election coming up within a year or two.

Unless the state wishes to get out of the marriage business altogether (an intriguing proposition), it will have to continue to wrestle with this matter until it comes to a firm and final conclusion. Compromise, in this case, won't cut it.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.