Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 21:54:21 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: HAWAI`I SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT ON HB 117, SD 1 Aloha ahi ahi kakou. It's getting very late. I'll post this Standing Committee Report, but I'm afraid I will have to retire for the evening. HB 118, HD 1, SD 1 will just have to wait until tomorrow. STANDING COMMITEE REPORT NO. 10 Honolulu, Hawai`i Feb 4, 1997 RE: H.B. No. 117 S.D. 1 Honorable Norman Mizuguchi President of the Senate Nineteenth State Legislature Regular Session of 1997 State of Hawai`i Sir: Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred H.B. No. 117 entitled: *A BILL FOR AN ACT PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO MARRIAGE" begs leave to report as follows: The purpose of this bill, as received by your Committee, was to propose an amendment to Article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i to clarity that statutes, regulations, laws, rules, orders, decrees, and legal doctrines that define or regulate marriage, the parties to marriage, or the benefits of marriage shall not be deemed in violation of this section or any other section of the Constitution by virtue of a limitation of the marriage relationship to the union of only one man and one woman. Your Committee finds that the issue of same sex marriage has been debated in public forums through the legislative process for four years now. Your Committee further finds that the wide-range of opinions of the various members of our community have been repeatedly expressed during those four years, and, unfortunately this issue still divides our community. Thus, in what is a significant shift from the Senate position of the Eighteenth Legislature, this Committee is embracing the House of Representatives proposal to provide an opportunity for the people to vote on a constitutional amendment that would place legal restrictions upon marriage. However, your Committee finds that there are fundamental flaws in S.B. No. 117 as received. First, the proposed amendment would alter the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of our ConstituTion. Your Committee notes that this clause in our Constitution ensures that none of our citizens will be discriminated against because of "race, religion, sex or ancestry." Therefore, your Committee finds that it is unwise and inappropriate to condition our State's promise and commitment to civil rights. Second, the proposed amendment, by conditioning judicial intepretation of and administrative determinations regarding our Constitution violates the principle of Separation of Powers. Our government is one of three co-equal branches, and this balance of powers has served the people of our State and nation well. It is a fundamental element of our democracy that this delicate balance will ultimately reflect the best of our people. Therefore, your Committee believes that this Separation of Powers principle should not be violated. Third, the proposed amendment will have the effect of denying substantial governmental benefits and privileges to some a of our citizens on the basis of sex. Your Committee believes that the legislature should not condone nor perpetuate any form of unwarranted discrimination upon any of our citizens, simply because they are involved in committed, caring relationships that the majority are not yet prepared to recognize. Accordingly, your Committee has amended the bill by deleting its substance and substituting therefor the provisions of S.B. 1800. The Senate draft language is intended to cure the defects in H.B. No. 117 by: (l) Proposing an amendment to Article IX of the Constitution expressly emowering the State to regulate marriage, including the limitation of marriage to couples of the opposite sex. This provision will have the effect of constitutionally validating existing limitations in current law and protect thern against interpretative challenge. It also does not in any way violate the separation of powers doctrine; and (2) Conditioning any reservation of rnarriage to couples of the Opposite sex upon the passage of laws ensuring that no deprivation of civil rights on the basis of sex results from the reservation. rt is your Qommittee's intention that this proviso effectively require that ~ similarly situated couples who are prohibited from marriage be provided all substantial governme~~ benefits of marriage unless a substantial governmental interest supports their withholding. Your Conurtittee finds that such a proviso will ensure equality in the application of our laws while permitting the protection of relevant substantial governmental arid corrinunity interests. As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No. 117, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as N.B. No. 117, S.D. 1, and be placed on the calendar tor Third Reading. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee of Judiciary /s/ Avery B. Chumbley /s/ Matt Matsunaga SSCR HB117 SDl JDC ~~pau~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The House [of Representatives] is a corrupt institution." --Newt Gingrich Esquire, 10/89 "I am a creature of the House." --Newt Gingrich The Atlantic, 6/93 ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~