Wrinkle in the rug
January 27th, 2010 by Derrick DePledgeState House Speaker Calvin Say has set a Friday deadline for a decision on civil unions, but if the speaker announces that there will be no vote because he does not have a two-thirds' majority to override a potential veto, it may not end there.
At any time during the rest of the session, a lawmaker could make a motion that the House agree to the state Senate version of the bill. If the motion gets a second, then there would be a floor vote, the exact thing House leaders are trying to avoid to protect vulnerable Democrats from public backlash.
Meanwhile, the Kokua Council, which represents seniors, put out a statement today supporting the bill.
One of the issues largely overlooked in the debate is the fact that heterosexual couples would have the right to enter into civil unions. The provision has been cited as a way to answer equal protection claims, but it would also have a practical impact.
Seniors who want to re-marry may be reluctant because of federal tax implications. Under a civil union, they would only be recognized as a couple in state law, not federal law.
From the Kokua Council's message to lawmakers:
Among our concerns are the complex and expensive financial and legal challenges that seniors face, particularly those for whom marriage is not an option. Many who would benefit from this bill are facing their retirement years with much uncertainty as to their ability to fully support their loved ones. Please take this step to assist many seniors in Hawaii who may not have the benefit of or be able to afford expensive legal services.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Why would there be "backlash" for a vote?
Aloha,
Keahi
January 27th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Keahi, Keahi, Keahi: c'mon man, get with the plan.
It's not taking a vote, per se, that will create a backlash, it's taking a vote that requires each legislator to publicly declare their position that may create a backlash. That would mostly come from those who oppose civil unions (against a legislator who votes for them) but I suppose could also come from those who support civil unions (against a legislator who votes against them). I say "mostly" because those who support civil unions are used to being shat upon so this will come as no surprise to them; those who oppose them have been so whipped into a frenzy by the phobic Arakaki/Alexander fric and frac duo that they will be righteously indignant at the prospect of losing something that was never "theirs" in the first place. And exact their punishment on legislators in close races accordingly.
And Calvin wants to protect ALL of them because, if there's not a veto proof margin, why take a vote at all? A vote with less than a veto proof margin invites a veto from the Lingle and, as a result, "unnecessarily" exposes members to scorn for whatever their position may be.
Any questions? Class over.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
But...if you can't heap scorn on legislators what good are they?
January 27th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Well, giving you the benefit of the doubt that I have not, but should have, given you previously, Bongo, and, even assuming that your tongue is planted firmly in cheek when you ask that question: I try to treat even the legislators I detest with profesional courtesy; you and I can take pot shots at them from the opposite side of the fence but at least they are putting themselves up there to be shot at. SOMEONE has to do the job and if you think that you can take shots just because they are trying, however inartfully, then I feel sorry for you and fret for the future of the republic.
I hope my children can make something of the mess I feel we are leaving them. And that they do a better job of fulfilling their civic responsibilities than have I.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Derrick,
I wonder if you aren't misreading the Kokua Council message? I see it as addressing the needs of GAY senior citizen couples "for whom marriage is not an option," and not talking about heterosexual couples who might want a civil union in order to avoid "federal tax implications."
Or maybe I'm the one misreading?
Maybe Jim can write in and let us know.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
ohia, you make a good point about Say wanting to protect all of them, whether they vote for or against, whether they're his allies or the dissident troublemakers. For whatever faults he has, the guy really cares more about the big picture and is willing to take the hit for it. I don't know anybody, especially among the other camp, that even comes close to him in that regard.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I don't think Derrick is misreading the Kokua statement. Actually there are two groups of seniors that benefit from HB444. Obviously the first group is gay senior citizen couples who currently have access to only very limited spousal protections via the state's RB law. Then there is another group, the heterosexual unmarried senior citizen couples who would like to marry but can't because of financial impact. Usually these are low income seniors (usually widows) collecting pensions and social security based on their deceased spouses earnings. If they re-marry, they end up losing their benefits. A civil union at least would grant them all state-level spousal rights, benefits, and obligations, but because it is not a marriage and not recognized by the Federal gov't, their social security and other federal pension rights are no impacted. There are other states that do allow opposite sex couples to form civil unions (called "Domestic Partnerships" in those states, however, in such states, only opposite sex couples where one partner is over 62 is allowed to register). These opposite sex couple schemes were designed specifically for the elderly. I believe that Hawaii is the first to allow opposite sex couples to form civil unions without an age restriction.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Oh, my last line (above) assumes that HB444 passes and becomes law.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Kolea, it's not gay seniors, it's straight seniors who would benefit from the civil unions bill. If a widow or widower is collecting federal survivor benefits and got married, s/he would lose those benefits. However, if s/he entered into a state-sanctioned civil union, s/he would still be able to receive those benefits but also be able to enter into a legal relationshipo with someone. Hence, the Kokua Council's support of the bill.
Or maybe that is your point and I'm misreading what you're trying to say.
@Earl of Sandwich, you have a point but if you take it to another level, if Say wants to protect everyone, it means nothing moves forward.
Here's what I think: every legislator is an adult and is fully capable of making adult decisions after weighing the consequences. Say shouldn't feel he is the father figure that needs to protect anyone.
But if you really read between the lines, it's mostly his people that are either queasy or opposed to civil unions and not the dissidents who generally are in favor of it.
@Keahi, you were jesting, no? Or do you really believe that a vote on this issue in favor wouldn't result in any backlash?
January 28th, 2010 at 4:12 am
Unless I were provided a better defense than I have read so far, the "benefit" of allowing opposite sex civil unions to the widow(er)s sounds more like "gaming the system" than "justice," in my opinion. i.e. I'd need to hear why the social security survivor benefits should, by right, be extended to (essentially) re-married individuals.
Extending that logic/scheme, could a divorcee form a civil union and continue collecting alimony from a former (marriage) spouse?
January 28th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Oops, nevermind about the alimony query. Alimony is administered by State courts, i.e. it's not a federal benefit, so I reckon a CU would halt alimony payments in the same manner that a re-marriage would.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:35 am
charles, I think you're right that the best protection is not to move anything forward. However, I think I differ with you as I would say that course of action is exclusive to this (election) year. Say and much of the House were ready to move something last year, and it would have gone through but for the Senate's either inept bungling or petty political manuvering, depending on whom you talk to. And then worse yet when the Senate sent it back this year - everyone's going to take a hit both ways multiple times. He's also told people next year would be the better time. So, protecting his flock by trying last year, and willing to try next year, but just not this year. Some advocates don't see the difference, but it's the smart thing to do even for them - why would you have a bunch of people pass civil unions in an election year, only to get voted out by people for whom the issue is still fresh, so a bunch of anti-gay people can get voted in and maybe repeal the law?
January 28th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Earl,
Whether the bill passes or not, civil unions will be a contentious issue in the Fall elections. Do you think the iVote people will fold up their tents if they manage to defeat the bill this year? Or will they go after the vulnerable, pro-civil union legislators in order to shave off a few more votes and set an example?
If the bill passes and is signed into law it becomes a fait accompli, a "done deal." Licenses will have been issued and ceremonies performed, relationships sealed. The chances of the Legislature agreeing to repeal civil unions, at that point, seems much less likely. To pass such a law, all committee chairs would have to believe. Lengthy hearings would have to be held and the argument against taking up a "divisive issue" when the Legislature "has so many other pressing issues," will work the other way. The inertia will be WITH civil unions.
I think it would easier to mobilize voters and cash contributions to STOP the bill than to overturn it once its passed. It is also easier procedurally.
In any event, the issue will be a factor in the Fall elections. I think hunkering down, remaining unified and NOT BREAKING RANKS is not only "the right thing," I think it is the politically smart thing.
If this exaggerated fear causes the pro-civil union members to break ranks and flee the battlefield, it will encourage bully tactics.
Colleen Hanabusa put the House members in this bad position by refusing to pass the bill last year. But once they find themselves in this situation, it falls upon them to keep a cool head and figure how to prevail. It falls upon the leadership to form a battle-plan and keep their courage up.
January 28th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Well said Kolea. I especially agree with your comments on bullying tactics. If our Democratic majority caves now to the bullying tactics of this loud vocal red-shirt/white-shirt (brown shirt in my opinion) minority, they only encourage and empower these "shirts" even further. What is next on their agenda? Do we really want to see Hawaii become the theocracy they envision? If civil unions pass, you know what will happen besides expanding equality in this state? Nothing. The sky won't come crashing down, Hawaii won't sink into the see, and we'll all be focused on the other problems that face our state. The "shirts" will see that life goes on and it will be business as usual, only perhaps slightly better with more of our citizens legally protected and an uptick in our economy due to civil unions. Professor LaCroix of the UH Economics Dept. estimates that just tourism revenue alone will increase by almost 7 million dollars per year due to civil unions.
January 28th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Ross,
Sumner LaCroix was one of my econ professors at UH. So I was interested in seeing what his studies on the economic impact of civil unions would be. I don't have them in front of me, but I remember thinking his estimates were quite conservative. When looking at the impact on direct costs to both the state and employers, he seemed to think the tax and benefits impact were pretty close to a "wash."
As I remember it, the one "bright spot" in his analysis was an increase in gay tourism.
It is tempting for advocates on either side of this debate to make strong claims about the impact of civil unions on tourism. Sumner avoided either extreme. Hawaii has always had a gay market in tourism, but it is my understanding the adoption of the constitutional amendment in 1998 alienated a segment of the market and dampened enthusiasm. My impression is some gay-friendly businesses hav ehelped mitigate that somewhat in recent years.
I have little doubt there is a significant sgement of the tourist market which will increase its visits if Hawaii passes civil unions. Both of folks wanting to be joined in civil unions and those who will feel more welcome if Hawaii repairs its damaged reputation on gay rights.
It won't solve our depressed tourist industry, but we need to reach out to multiple niche markets to cobble together sufficient visitor growth. This market will respond quickly and significantly.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
My recollection is the same. The biggest benefit to the state would be increased tourism spending. The costs associated with benefits and taxes were negligible. There would be a slight increase in revenue associated with increased taxes, civil union license fees, etc. The cost of providing additional health benefits to the state is zero, since the Employers Union Trust Fund already provides health benefits to same-sex or opposite sex domestic partners. Prof. LaCroix estimated that annual tourism revenue would increase by $6.8 per year, conservatively......and of course this is for civil unions. If we were talking about a full marriage bill, that number would be much higher.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I would also agree that the 98 amendment alienated members of the GLBT community from Hawaii. My same-sex spouse is in a professional field that is in demand in Hawaii and something very uniquely suited to Hawaii. Ever since 2000, he had been asking me to agree to relocate here as it would be so good for his professional development. My answer was always "no" since I did not want to live in a state that did not recognize our relationship and was the first one to actually pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment. So what changed, since we are certainly living her now? In 2007 a civil union bill was introduced in the Hawaii House of Reps right around the time that my spouse was recruited and offered a position at UH. The timing of the two influenced me to change my mind, and we moved here in 2007. The 2007 civil union bill gave me hope that things would change in Hawaii for the better.