The governor and members of the Legislature have taken oaths to support and defend the constitutions of the United States and the state of Hawaii, and also discharge their duties to the best of their abilities.
The fulfillment of their oaths of office requires integrity, courage, commitment and sacrifice. As a retired military officer, I understand the significance of these oaths, and I am grateful for our elected officials, and our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed to defend our constitutional rights and freedoms.
The hope of the people is that our elected officials will always do their best to fulfill their oaths. That is why people in Hawaii are anxious about the special session called by the governor to consider his same-sex marriage bill.
Many are concerned with how the bill might affect rights protected by the U.S. and state constitutions.
The idea that the same-sex marriage bill requires religious protections in the first place has raised concerns about infringement of First Amendment (U.S. Constitution) and Article 1, Section 4 (Hawaii Constitution) freedoms. Even more troubling is that the bill will be considered during a five-day session and cannot be amended.
The special session will limit public comment, and any comments made will have no impact on the bill’s final language. The point of democracy is to allow the public to be heard and incorporate input to create better laws than elected officials could have created on their own.
But the governor has neutered the public-input process with his unwillingness to entertain amendments from proponents and opponents alike. Rather than being a forum to discuss and improve the merits of a bill, public testimo- ny will be little more than a dog-and-pony show.
Analysis of religious exemptions in the governor’s draft same-sex marriage bill, dated Sept. 9, indicates they do not provide the same level of religious protection contained in legislation adopted by the 13 states and District of Columbia that have legalized same-sex unions. The proposed Hawaii bill only specifies limited protections for religious organizations and facilities in connection with the state public accommodations law. Other states, such as Washington, specifically exempt religious organizations and their affiliates from the dictates of public accommodations laws.
Of note, the definition of "religious organizations" for some states is detailed and inclusive, thus protecting a multitude of religious entities. However, the Hawaii bill does not define or describe "religious organizations." Delaware and other states specifically reference the U.S. and their respective state Constitutions, and the importance of protecting religious freedom; the Hawaii bill does neither.
Any legislation that will transform all aspects of Hawaii’s society — and have pervasive, long-term and irrevocable effects — should be decided by the people of Hawaii, especially if it will infringe upon their constitutional rights and freedoms. Letting the people of Hawaii decide on the issue of marriage is about ensuring the constitutional rights of all citizens are protected.
The last thing Hawaii needs from the special session is rushed and ill-considered legislation that disenfranchises much of the electorate.
The Hawaii Constitution states: "All political power of this State is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people. All government is founded on this authority."
Legislators can fulfill their oaths of office with integrity by voting "no" on the governor’s bill in the special session, and by ensuring future legislation regarding marriage is developed in a constitutional process that guarantees the greatest transpar- ency, the fullest debate and the maximum participation of the electorate.
The people must decide the future of marriage in Hawaii.
