In 1993, Hawai'i was thrust into the national spotlight when a lawsuit seeking marriage for lesbian and gay couples was working its way through the courts. But opponents of equal treatment for lesbian and gay people did something that had never been done before in the state: they tipped the balance of power set up to keep each branch of government in check by putting an amendment on the ballot to strip the courts of their ability to decide the issue.

Although the amendment passed in 1998, it's important to remember that it did not permanently bar lesbian and gay couples from marrying (or, for that matter, entering into a civil union). Rather, the amendment changed the constitution so that only the Hawai'i Legislature could set the rules on who is and is not allowed to marry.

In the past 16 years, public opinion about lesbian and gay relationships has changed significantly and there is now broad support for providing legal protections. A Newsweek poll from December 2008 found that 55 percent of America now favors providing lesbian and gay couples with legally sanctioned unions or partnerships providing all the protections of marriage. Support in Hawai'i is even stronger. In December 2007, more than 70 percent of those questioned in a QMark Research poll agreed that committed couples should have the same rights regardless of sexual orientation.

So, it makes sense for the state Legislature to consider a civil unions bill that would give same-sex couples all the legal protections that the state provides married couples.

Furthermore, more and more people have had the opportunity to get to know same-sex couples and they realize that their lives are surprisingly like their own. Gay couples struggle to pay the rent and put food on the table. They are worried about their jobs and retirement plans. They have the same hopes and dreams for their children's futures. The only difference is they don't have the same legal protections that the state has established to help families make it through the tough times.

Take Jeff Brown, a retired U.S. Army captain, and his partner of 20 years, Randy Fressle, an artist. In July 2002, they moved to Maui from California, so that Jeff could take a job with The Research Corporation of the University of Hawai'i. After the couple registered as reciprocal beneficiaries with the state, Jeff thought that his partner would be entitled to health insurance and other employee benefits provided to married employees.

But RCUH refused. After fighting for three years, RCUH provided the coverage. But unlike married employees, he is required to pay for the additional costs of the insurance — more than $300 per month.

If Jeff decides to retire, his partner will no longer be eligible, yet married employees can continue to insure their spouses. So while Jeff has spent his entire life serving his country and Hawai'i, he still does not have access to many of the legal protections that married couples take for granted.

Opponents to the civil unions bill assert that it's too much like marriage. To be clear, the civil unions bill will not allow Jeff and Randy to marry. They will still be denied the more than 1,000 federal protections that come with marriage, and their civil union will not be recognized by most other states. The U.S. Army will consider Randy nothing more than a stranger for purposes of Jeff's retiree benefits. They will continue to be denied the respect, dignity and status that come only with marriage. But they will gladly trade what they have now for civil unions.

So here's a simple question for those who say civil unions are too much like marriage: Would you trade your marriage for a civil union?

Lois K. Perrin is the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i. She wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.