Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 12, 2007, 08:47:50 AM
-
Liberal legislator killing homosexual marriage. Objection to homosexual marriage remains bipartisan.
Posted on: Monday, March 12, 2007
Civil-unions bill deferral by House ignites backlash
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Government Writer
RECIPROCAL BENEFICIARIES
The law, passed in 1997 in the heat of a statewide debate on gay marriage, allows gay couples and other partners to register as reciprocal beneficiaries with the state and receive many of the same benefits as marriage. The option is not explicitly for gay couples — it is for anyone unable to legally marry, such as siblings — but in practice it is mostly seen in the context of expanding gay rights.
A state House bill approved Thursday would recognize reciprocal beneficiaries in the state's Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, a health plan for state and county employees. They were left out of the original law.
The bill now goes to the Senate.
Supporters say the bill extends benefits to gay couples and makes some progress toward greater equality. But some gay rights activists believe that expanding the reciprocal beneficiary law only validates a separate but equal mentality by the government and detracts from their goal of civil unions.
State Rep. Tommy Waters has stopped reading the ugly e-mail. He has been called a chicken in the press. Gay rights activists want him dumped as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Waters, D-51st (Lanikai, Waimanalo), thought there would be some heat for his decision to defer a bill allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions. He didn't think it would all be on him. "I'm the devil," he said.
The truth, as it usually is at the state Capitol, is more nuanced.
The death of civil unions in the House, and the rise of a bill extending state and county employee health coverage to gay couples, is about good intentions, party politics, media influence and — most of all — mismanaged expectations.
It is a story not unique to the issue of civil unions, and it shows the complexity and emotional challenges lawmakers can face as they try to do what they see as the right thing while balancing competing interests.
Much of the blame for the failure of the civil-unions bill has fallen on Waters, a boyish, easy-going attorney in his first session as Judiciary chairman, but only because he is the most convenient target.
Civil unions was not part of the House Democrats' majority package, and insiders said before session they doubted it would have a realistic chance of passing.
But civil unions is in the Democratic Party of Hawai'i's platform, and its gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered caucus listed it as a priority for lawmakers, specifically asking for a hearing. News coverage also elevated the issue right at the time lawmakers were choosing which bills to hear.
DIFFERENT PLAN IN MIND
Waters had wanted to work with gay activists on expanding the state's reciprocal beneficiaries law, which offers gay couples and other partners many of the same benefits as marriage. But he did not believe the time was right for civil unions and was not inclined to hold a hearing.
State House Majority Leader Kirk Caldwell, D-24th (Manoa), said House leaders persuaded him. "We only asked for a hearing," Caldwell said. "We didn't tell him to move it out. People could vote their conscience."
Concerned a civil-unions vote might leave some Democrats vulnerable in their re-election campaigns in 2008, House leaders polled the caucus and asked whether Judiciary should hear the bill. A majority supported a hearing, Caldwell said, but he was unsure whether there were enough votes in Judiciary to pass the bill to the House floor.
Waters and state Rep. Blake Oshiro, D-33rd ('Aiea, Halawa Valley, 'Aiea Heights), the committee's vice chairman, went into the evening hearing last month thinking the committee was about evenly split. But other lawmakers who had counted heads predicted a vote would fall short.
Gay activists, who had originally thought the session would be more about educating lawmakers than in actually getting civil unions, believed they had momentum going into the hearing. The activists thought a vote would be close but were concerned that Waters, as chairman, might sway lawmakers who were open to civil unions but hesitant to cross leadership.
"We really thought we were in a very good position," said Jo-Ann Adams, co-chair of the party's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered caucus.
QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT
After five hours of emotionally wrenching testimony, Waters, Oshiro and the other lawmakers on the committee started counting votes for real. In the whispered negotiations, held in full view of a tired but eager audience, it became apparent that a vote could be embarrassingly lopsided. Only three lawmakers on the 17-member committee who were still there were definitely going to vote yes.
Oshiro, one of the three, wanted a vote anyway. So did Waters. But the pendulum had swung. Instead of putting Democrats at political risk for voting in favor of civil unions, some now worried they would alienate well-connected gay activists in the party and set the movement back by voting so overwhelmingly against the bill.
State Rep. Joe Souki, D-8th (Wailuku, Waihe'e, Waiehu), the speaker emeritus and one of the House's old guard, stepped in and said it would look bad if Waters, the chairman, and Oshiro, the vice chairman, were on opposite sides of the vote. Souki told Caldwell to take charge as majority leader and get Waters to defer the bill.
Waters made the announcement and quickly left the hearing room. Some of the gay activists were incensed, demanding to know why they were not given a vote.
"I think most people felt confused," said Adams, who felt they had made compelling legal, social and moral arguments.
Waters said in hindsight that he could have handled the announcement better, which may have soothed some bad feelings.
"If I had to do it over, I would have just held the vote," Waters said. "But it would have been embarrassing, and this issue really would have been dead."
The backlash against Waters started the morning after the hearing and has continued. Adams and Bill Woods, another prominent gay activist in the party, have told House leaders that Waters should be replaced as Judiciary chairman and, if they did not have the guts to do it, then perhaps they should be replaced as leaders.
Some House leaders have said privately that the party has let them roast, pushing them for a hearing but then not doing enough legwork to either get the necessary votes or explain to gay activists that a hearing might be all they could hope for this session.
AMENDMENT ISSUES
Mike McCartney, the party's chairman, who was on the Mainland and missed the hearing, acknowledged he could have done better. "There are bad feelings. There's disappointment," he said. "I have to do a better job of getting our elected members and the party on the same page."
Finding opportunity in the chaos, state Rep. Sylvia Luke, D-26th (Pacific Heights, Pauoa, Punchbowl), popped up last week with an amendment that would extend state and county health coverage to gay couples and other partners who register as reciprocal beneficiaries. The amendment led to a stormy closed-door caucus where Waters was again put in the middle.
According to sources who attended, some thought Luke, one of the dissidents to House leadership, was using the issue to drive a wedge through the caucus, while others wanted to know why they should act when some in the gay community are against expanding reciprocal benefits because they really want civil unions. Luke said she simply wanted to make some progress toward greater equality this session.
The House ended up passing the reciprocal beneficiaries bill Thursday and sent it over to the Senate.
Looking back, Caldwell now wonders whether House leaders should have urged Waters to hear the civil unions bill. "What did I learn from this? I probably should have listened to Tommy," he said. "But we're Democrats, and this is a platform issue for us, so we wanted to at least have a hearing."
Said Waters, who noted that the Senate has not taken up civil unions this session: "The guy who has the hearing turns out to be the goat. But, in the end, I guess it was important for us to have the discussion."
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/NEWS01/703120357/1001