Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 16:58:40 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: Hawai`i Action Alert, Information & Update #5 Aloha awakea kakou. Update #4 was just posted, and already #5 is being built, starting with an insightful letter that was received as #4 was being broadcast. These next few days will probably be intense, and the legislative action could run up until midnight on Friday, April 11th. Another possibility: Hell Week, part deux. ROBERT BADE: Letter to the Editor JOHN SOBIESKI & CHAD EDMUNDSEN: E-mail to the 4 Senators REPORTS ON THE JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS 4/8/97 BILL WOODS TRACEY BENNETT BILL WOODS: Call for feedback CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON HB 117, SD 1, CD 1 TEXT OF H.B. proposed 117, S.D. 1, C.D. 1 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON HB 118, HD 1, SD 1, CD 1 POSTER'S NOTES: TEXT OF H.B. proposed 118, H.D. 1, S.D. 1, C.D. 1 Communication problems today <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> LETTER FROM ROBERT BADE: While following the current marriage debate closely, it occurs to me that one voice has been conspicuously absent: the voice of experience. As a long time resident of Oregon, I have had the displeasure of seeing the great harm these political battles do to a community. During the several ballot measures recently aimed against gays and lesbians here in Oregon I have seen nothing good accomplished. Instead, huge amounts of money, time and energy were depleted. Millions of dollars that could have gone to schools and literacy programs. Hundreds of thousands of hours which could have been volunteered to help the elderly or homeless. Energy and wisdom that could have been used towards creative solutions to true social ills. Instead, all had been redirected to years of political fighting which accomplished nothing. And the resulting cost in anger and bitterness, still being felt, is beyond measure. For a price so high one must make sure the reward is even greater. Is this battle to limit the rights of a certain class of citizens truely worth it? It would be a heartbreak to see Hawaii make the same mistake we did. Sincerely, Robert C. Bade Portland, Oregon <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> EIMAIL FROM JOHN SOBIESKI & CHAD EDMONDSON: >To: Matt Matsunga email: matsanga@pixi.com > Avery Chumbley email: abc@aloha.net > Mike McCartney email: senmccartney@capitol.hawaii.gov > Wayne Metcalf email: senmetcalf@capitol.hawaii.gov > >Dear Sirs: >I live on the mainland and have been watching the battles being waged in >Hawaii over granting equal rights and benefits of marriage to all its >citizens. >I was very pleased to learn Hawaii has a clause in your state’s constitution >that prohibits discrimination based on the gender. I believe the courts were >correct when they judged the state did discriminate against gay and lesbian >people when it refused to grant them marriage licenses. > >I applaud your personal efforts to prevent an erosion of your wonderful >constitution. An erosion that I believe would allow the state to continue >preventing its gay and lesbian citizens from having the same rights as its >heterosexual, married couples. > >Eventually, I hope all states will have a similar equal rights clause against >discrimination in their state constitutions. > >Sincerely, >John V. Sobieski & Chan Edmondson [Dallas, or thereabouts] >Ten years together, yet strangers before the law. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> BILL WOODS: REPORT ON THE JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE HEARING OF 4/8/97 Received this via telephone from the State Capitol in Honolulu from Bill Woods, president of the Gay and Lesbian Education and Advocacy (GLEA) Foundation at 10am HST. The Hawai`i Senate Joint Conference Committee conferees, seeking to address the concerns of their chamber and that of the Hawai`i House of Representatives conferees, have just made the following proposals regarding HB 117, relating to a Constitutional Amendment to regulate marriage and HB 118, a new law defining Reciprocal Beneficiaries. The Senate's newest version of HB 117 reads roughly as follows: "The legislature shall have the power to regulate the issuances of marriage licenses." The specific intent DOES NOT address any civil rights concerns and leaves the door open for same-sex couples to seek rights and benefits bestowed to opposite-sex couples through the issuance of marriage licenses. The Senate's version of HB 118 makes two substanitial changes to the House's counterproposal regarding the establishment of a new Reciprocal Beneficiaries law: 1) Deletes the residency requirement (as unconstitutional) 2) Extends health care coverage (the House's counterproposal allowed for the employer to extend health coverage to a partner, but also reserved the right of the employer to refuse to pay for the additional cost, which would be borne by the partner.) The Senate's new counterproposal also instructs the Legislative Reference Bureau to review and study the ifiscal mpact of HB 118 on Worker's Compensation Insurance, Personal Income Taxes, Unemployment Insurance and Pre-paid Health Insurance, and to issue a report due to the Legislature no less than 20 days before the start of the next Legislative session in January of 1998. Further, the Senate's version of HB 118 would become immediately active if passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor. However, the Hawai`i Attorney General Margery Bronster noted that it is constitutionally questionable, and possibly illegal, to connect a statute to a constitutional amendment. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> TRACEY BENNETT: REPORT ON THE JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE HEARING OF 4/8/97 Please cautiously forward message from Marriage Project Hawaii: If you have heard about the latest Senate version of HB 117, the constitutional amendment, please understand that there is more than meets the ear. The news beneath the surface is good. This bill separates the 2 parts of the Baehr v. Miike decision: On one hand it would let the legislature regulate who gets a marriage LICENSE, that piece of paper. Until public opinion shifts, traditional marriage would be preserved. On the other hand the bill would allow "others to be provided with the rights, benefits, and burdens as determined by law." This means that the marriage benefits of the Baehr case would still be granted -- unless the more restrictive HB 118 (reciprocal beneficiaries bill) passes. Make no mistake: this is a constitutional amendment that would deny our right to marry and to enjoy *federal* rights and benefits. SO WE OPPOSE IT. But both the bill and the committee report clearly say that state rights and benefits will be given. Unlike the previous House version, "the amendment is not intended to restrict any element of due process or equal protection with respect to the extension of rights, benefits and burdens to others when doing so is reasonable and fair." That means couples can take their complaints to court if they want more rights than are granted under the r.b. bill, HB 118. If NO r.b. bill passes, the yardstick would be the law as determined by the Baehr decision (in other words, all state rights and benefits). The wording of the amendment is "Shall the legislature have the power to regulate the issuance of marriage licenses?" Because it doesn't say anything about the rights and benefits, voters won't know that it addresses only the license, the piece of paper. On the surface it won't be as objectionable to the anti-civil rights voters. Passage will mean that only a man and a woman can marry because that law passed in 1994. The Senate's version of the reciprocal beneficiaries bill will probably be unacceptable to Rep. Tom. (Right now the benefits split is Senate: 200 benefits; House: 5.) Other differences: 118 would take effect immediately upon passage; there would be no 1-year residency requirement; it would include health-care benefits, workers comp, and public employees' retirement. Nothing was agreed upon, not even the next meeting time. Remember to keep those calls and letters coming in. They DO make a difference. Mahalo, Tracey Bennett Senator Matt Matsunaga p-(808) 586-7100 f-(808) 586-7109 email matsnaga@pixi.com Senator Avery Chumbley p-(808) 586-6030 f-(808) 586-6031 email abc@aloha.net Senator Mike McCartney p-(808) 586-6910 f-(808) 586-6909 email senmccartney@capitol.hawaii.gov Senator Wayne Metcalf p-(808) 586-6900 f-(808) 586-6869 email senmetcalf@capitol.hawaii.gov <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> BILL WOODS: REPORT ON THE JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE HEARING OF 4/8/97 Aloha Folks, Hawaii Gay Marriage Project is providing the latest information regarding todays (4-8-97) Senate conferees' proposal for a constitutional amendment HB117 and modifications to the reciprocal beneficiaries bill HB118. HB117: The Senate Conferees offered the latest version which simply states: "The legislature shall have the power to regulate the issuance of marriage licenses." The senators stated that this met the specific requests of the House for having the legislature set the definition of marriage. If passed it would preclude the State Supreme Court from acting on any definition of marriage as related to other areas of the Constitution. However as stated in the proposed amendment: "The constitutional amendment does not impose any restrictions upon access to legislature, administrationm, or courts on the recognition to others of rights and benefits afforded married couples. No such rights are intended to be constitutionally conferred. But no limitation on the due process or equal protection rights of any person are imposed." "The status of marriage as a union between persons of the opposite sex is constitutionally preserved. The extension of rights to nontraditional couples is permitted. Commentary from this author: Clearly the amendment would allow the legislature to solely define marriage as they chose. However, the rights and benefits which are equally the basis of the lawsuit would not be jeopardized, just not conveyed through the institutional of legal marriage if the amendment should pass. Another interpretation is that all the rights and benefits of marriage that same-sex couples are seeking would still be addressed under equal protection, but could not be called legal marriage, thus not recognized by other states or federal government. HB118 This bill to establish reciprocal beneficiaries of any two people not allowed to be legally married would convey some rights to these couples. The proposal today would: 1. delete residency requirement which House felt was unconstitutional. 2. Extend health care benefits. 3. Effective date would be upon passage by legislature and signed by governor. AG determined that linking such a measure to potential passage of an amendment was unconstitutional. 4. Call for a Legislative Reference Bureau study on the fiscal impact if rights and benefits adopted for workers compensation, insurance, income tax, and pre-paid healthcare. Clearly the proposed amendment would declare only marriage between a male and a female and would allow equal protection based upon the rights and benefits alone to be conveyed to same-sex couples, but call it something else. The HB118 is virtually unconstitutional on the surface based upon sex discrimination and other legal issues - and parts or all will be stricken or expanded to eliminate the discrimination. Eventually it would be expanded to each and every right of marriage because same-sex couples would have to have the rights and benefits, but not call it marriage. Your comments are encouraged to help us see all the implications. Please respond to this inquiry ASAP. do good Bill (hawaiigay1@aol.com) Hawai Gay Marriage Project GLEA Foundation <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON HB 117, SD 1, CD 1 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO _____ Hono1u1u, Hawai`i ,1997 RE: H.B. No. 117 S.D. 1 C.D 1 Honorable Joseph M. Souki Speaker, House of Representatives Nineteenth State Legislature Regular Session of 1997 State of Hawai`i Honorable Norman Mizuguchi President of the Senate Nineteenth State Legis1ature Regular session of 1997 State of Hawai`i Sir: Your Committee on conference on the disagreeing vote of the House of Representatives to the amendments proposed by the Senate in H.B.. No. 117, S.D. 1, entitled: "A BILL FOR AN ACT PROPOSING A CONSTIONTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO MARRIAGE," having met, and after full and free discussion, has agreed to recommend and does recommend to the respective Houses the final passage of this bill in an amended form. The purpose of this bill, as received, was to propose a constitutional amendment to empower the State to regulate and define marriage, including the reservation of marriage to couples of the opposite sex; provided that any such reservation would be effective only if it did not deprive any person of civil rights on the basis of sex. The intent of this measure in both its House of Representatives and Senate versions is provide the people of Hawai`i with an opportunity to amend the Hawai`i State Constitution to expressiy limit the status of marriage to couples of the opposite sex. Another point of agreement between the houses is that in amending the Constitution there was no intention to discriminate against any segment of our population. House of Representatives objections to the Senate version included: 1 An insistence upon a "clean" amendment. That is, an amendment which was not conditioned upon the provision of civil rights and which may therefore be subject to overturning by the courts; 2. The retention of all jurisdiction over marriage to the legislature. That is, that the House would not support any Constitutional Amendment which gave any power whatsoever to the Court or any Administrator to impose same-sex marriage on the people of Hawai`i; and 3 Objection to the ensuring of "civil rights" to nontraditiona1 couples because of a concern this might be interpreted to impose same-gender marriage. Senate objections to the House of Representatives version included: 1. The failure to ensure any rights to non-traditional couples; 2. The eliminating of access to the courts on this issue as a potential violation of the separation of powers doctrine; and 3. A concern that isolating any segment of our population from access to any branch of government while restricting arguable state-provided civil rights may run afoul of the federal Constitution Both the House and Senate conferees remain concerned about these genuine good faith differences. However, there is agreement that this issue is too important to leave unaddressed. Accordingly, your Conference has agreed upon language which would: 1. Cleanly, expressly, and unequivocally provide to the Legislature alone the power to regulate the issuance of marriage licenses; and 2. Implicitly, and by intention, preserve all Due Process and Equal Protection rights with regard to the benef its, rights, and burdens of marriage. In this fashion, your Committee finds that the peop1e of Hawai`i will be permitted the opportunity to overrule the principle holding of Baehr v. Miike with respect to the issuance of marriage licenses. However, the fabric of our Constitution will not be rent thereby, as all citizeris will retain constitutiona1 rights to full and fair due process and redress for genuine substantive deprivations and discrimination. Your Committee on Conference is in accord with the intent and purpose of No. 117, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Fina1 Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 1l7, S.D. 1, C.D. 1. Respectfully submitted, [unsigned by Avery B. Chumbley, Matthew Matsunaga, Mike McCartney, Wayne Metcalf, Terrance Tom, Romy Cachola, Robert Herkes, Brian Yamane, Paul Whalen] <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> TEXT OF THE NEW HOUSE BILL PROPOSED 117, SENATE DRAFT 1, CONFERENCE DRAFT 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1997 STATE OF HAWAII H.B. proposed 117, S.D. 1, C.D. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATTING TO MARRIAGE: BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I: 1 SECTION 1. The constitutiona1 amendment proposed by this 2 bill will reinstate the restriction in our marriage laws which 3 limits the issuance of marriage licenses to couples of the 4 opposite sex. It will do so in a fashion that reserves amendment 5 and review of this restriction to the legislature. This 6 reservation will ensure that restrictions of marital status based 7 upon sex continue to represent the prevailing popular will. 8 However, the legislature is also cognizant of its obligation 9 to promote equality among all of Hawai`i's citizens. Accordingly, 10 the amendment is not intended to restrict any element of due l1 process or equal protection with respect to the extension of 12 rights, benefits and burdens to others when doing so is l3 reasonable and fair 14 The purpose of this Act is to propose an amendment to l5 Article I of the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i that will l6 preserve traditionial marriage while allowing others to be l7 provided with the rights, benefits, and burdens as determined by 18 law. 19 SECTION 2. Article I of the Constitution of the State of 20 Hawai`i is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Page 2 H.B. NO. 117, S.D. 1, C.D. 1 1 "MARRIAGE 2 Section 23. The 1egislature shall have the power to 3 regulate the issuance of marriage licenses." 4 SECTION 3. The question to be printed on the ballot shall 5 be as follows: 6 "Shall the Legislature have the power to regulate the 7 issuance marriage licenses?" 8 SECTION 4. New constitutional material is underscored. 9 SECTION 5 This amendment shall take effect upon compliance 10 with article XVII, section 3, of the Constitution of the State of 11 Hawai`i. HB 117 CD1 PROPOSED S/A <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON HB 118, HD 1, SD 1, CD 1 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO.__________ Honolulu, Hawai`i ,1997 RE: H.B. No 118 H.D. 1 S.D. 1 C.D. 1 Honorable Joseph M.Souki Speaker, House of Representatives Nineteenth State Legislature Regular Session of 1997 State of Hawai`i Honorable Norman Mizuguchi President of the Senate Nineteenth State Legislature Regular Session of 1997 State of Hawai`i Sir. Your Committee on Conference on the disagreeing vote of the House of Representatives to the amendments proposed by the Senate in H.B. NO. 118, H.D. 1, S.D. , entitled: "A BILL POR AN ACT RELATING TO UNMARRIED COUPLES," having met, and after full and free discussion, has agreed to recommend and does recommend to the respective Houses the final passage of this bill in an amended form. The purpose of this bill is to establish the status of reciprocal beneficiaries and provide certain state governmental benefits to those with such Status. H.B. No. 118, H.B. 1, established reciprocal beneficiaries and provided limited benefits including: hospital visitation and health care decisions; holding property as tenants in the entirety; inheritance rights; and the right to sue for wrongful death. We find these to be among the most appropriate and important governmental privileges that could be reasonably extended thus, as a starting point, your Committee considered the provisions of H.B. No 118, H.D. l, as well as the provisions contained in S.B. No. 98, Relating to Economic Benefits which included similar provisions as H.B. No. 118, H.D. l, and also allowed parties to file a joint tax return and claim dependents. However, your Committee cannot in all fairness find that appropriate governmental benefits should be limited to "rights after death." Thus, taking the specifically identified provisions of H.B. No. 118, H.D. 1 and S.B. No. 98 as guideposts to the types of rights that might be reasonably extended to couples legally prohibited from marriage, H.B. No 118, S.D. 1 identified additional governmental rights that should be appropriately included in an expanded rights package. Most importantly, health insurance benefits were extended to couples of the opposite gender. Your Committee notes, however, that these additional governmental rights do not include all spousal rights and benefits, nor all marital burdens Accordingly, this identification of certain governmental rights has excluded from the extended benefits package those benefits which could conflict with other substantial governmental interests, such as the State's interest in preserving the traditional farmily, and conflicts with federal law or interstate agreements. Your Committee wants to state for the record that the exclusion of certain rights is not because we believe that they should not or cannot be extended to reciprocal beneficiaries. Rather, we have included in this bill, certain governmental rights that we believe any fair minded citizen would agree should reasonab1y be extended to others. Your Committee also acknowledges that upon further review, future legislatures may determine that additional rights should be extended to reciprocal beneficiaries, and, therefore, is aware that this is not an exclusive provision of governmental rights. Upon further consideration by your Committee on Conference, H.B. No 118, H.D. 1, S.D. 1 has been amended by: (1) Deleting the residency requirement of one year for applicants as a qualification for reciprocal beneficiary status; (2) extending health care benefits to all reciprocal beneficiaries; (3) Requesting the legislative reference bureau to conduct a "closed claim" study of the fiscal impacts of providing reciprocal benefits under workers' compensation, unernployment compensation, state income tax, and prepaid health insurance provisions, and requiring a report to be submitted twenty days prior to the convening of the 1999 regular session; (4) changing the effective date to upon approval; and (5) Making technical, non-substantive changes for tne purposes of clarity and style. Your Committee on Conference is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No. 118, H.D. 1, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Final Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 118, H.D. 1, S.D. 1, C.D. 1. Respectfully submitted, [unsigned by Avery B. Chumbley, Matthew Matsunaga, Mike McCartney, Wayne Metcalf, Terrance Tom, Romy Cachola, Robert Herkes, Brian Yamane, Cynthia Theilen.] <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> POSTER'S NOTES: TEXT OF H.B. 118, HD 1, SD 1, CD 1 Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen today, or anytime before April 20th, if then. It's some thirty pages long. If you really need a copy, I suggest you contact the Hawai`i State Capitol, Senate Printing Office or you can set your browser to HAWAII STATE GOVERNMENT to see if it has been posted on the state's website. Also, if you are a Hawai`i state resident, one of your legislators may be able to fax it to you. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> POSTER'S NOTES: COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS There's been major communication problems today. aol.com is up and down like a yo-yo. Messages to addresses at juno.com are being bounced back. I've had to remove (temporarily) any addresses at gte.net, as any attempt to post there knocks *ME* off line, and aloha.net is refusing to acknowledge some addresses on a sporadic basis that I've been posting to for quite some time, which cancels the pending broadcast. This is Hell Week in its own *special* way. (NOTE: PRIDE at NYUSB, please send me your e-mail address again, I deleted it erroneously.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Is there any truth to the rumor that a gay man is trapped in the body of Martha Stewart?" --Unknown ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~