The recent House and Senate hearings for HB 444 will go into the history books as milestones for civil rights. First, the civil union bill earned an overwhelming vote of confidence from the Hawai'i House of Representatives, including unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee. Later, the democratic process was further upheld in the Senate with a record-breaking hearing that lasted more than 15 hours, as nearly 1,500 people were given an opportunity to testify.

The grassroots coalition that supports civil unions has been working for more than 10 years to raise awareness about civil unions and build consensus to adopt this legislation. These years of alliance building and education are now coming to fruition as a clear majority of legislators seem poised to honor their obligation to the Constitution by endorsing civil unions.

The rationale for supporting civil unions comes from the Hawai'i Constitution. In Article 1, Section 3 it states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State on account of sex. The legislature shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this section."

Thus HB 444, is exactly the type of bill that is called for to abide this cornerstone clause, as well as the 1998 voter-approved amendment, which was intended to be read narrowly. It consists of only 12 words, words that were deliberately chosen to accurately and completely represent the will of the voters.

The amendment plainly says: "The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." It is not legal to now widen the scope of the amendment once it has been adopted.

The words cannot be changed unless repealed by another amendment. Words matter and the words of this amendment do not prohibit civil unions. That is the will of the voters.

Realize that by 1998, civil unions had already existed as a recognized legal concept for nearly a decade. If Hawai'i voters intended then to forever prohibit fully equal civil unions, they didn't say so in their marriage amendment. Further, the amendment never invalidated the earlier clause and its promise for equality.

Though some have suggested there is a need for another vote by the people before HB 444 is approved, there is no Constitutional basis for this desire. It is only the Legislature that is mandated to assure the equal protection required by the Constitution. While our democracy relies on the principle of majority rule, it also requires the equal protection of civil rights for all citizens. It is unfair and immoral to suggest that civil rights be put to a vote of the electorate. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and apply equally to all citizens.

While the electorate may advance future Constitutional amendments, following a stringent procedure, the outcome of some potential future vote has no bearing on legislation currently under consideration.

The Legislature is right to act this year to endorse civil unions because HB 444 has properly moved through legislative channels, including multiple years of hearings. It is false to suggest that this bill was secretly fast-tracked. It has been on everyone's radar screen for years with ever-growing support.

It is the people and the Constitution that have empowered the Legislature to both adopt civil unions and define marriage. We should now allow legislators to do their job and uphold their sworn duty to the Constitution.

The history of the civil rights movement has shown us that it is often initially unpopular to expand the benefits of equality. Yet it is exactly this expansion that has helped America to better know the tenets of democracy and become a leader for freedom and human rights.

In this time of global economic crisis, the need for equality is especially acute. HB 444 is the compromise legislation that serves the greatest need. It should be enacted as soon as possible.

Reach Eduardo Hernandez at (Unknown address).

Eduardo Hernandez is member and past co-chair of the Family Equality Coalition Hawai'i and a resident of New York. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.