HB 444
Friday, April 30, 2010 at 07:28AM It's not just what they did. It's how they did it.
Since HB 444 was deferred at the beginning of this legislative session, it required a 2/3 vote or 34 votes to take it off the table for a vote. But because they did not have enough votes to do this, they voted to SUSPEND THE HOUSE RULES. This passed with a simple majority which allowed them to take the bill off the table with a simple majority. In other words, a 2/3 vote of the full House is needed to reconsider a tabled bill, this rule of protocol was suspended yesterday with a simple majority vote. So, why have a 2/3 majority rule at all if you can overcome it with a simple majority?
The bill was then passed in the House with a 31-20 vote.
REPRESENTATIVES WHO VOTED FOR HB 444 on Final Reading who Support Civil Unions
- Rep. Della Au Belatti
- Rep. Lyla Berg
- Rep. Joe Bertram, III
- Rep. Tom Brower
- Rep. Rida Cabanilla
- Rep. Mele Carroll
- Rep. Pono Chong
- Rep. Denny Coffman
- Rep. Faye Hanohano
- Rep. Robert Herkes
- Rep. John Riki Karamatsu (seconded motion)
- Rep. Gilbert Keith Agaran
- Rep. Chris Lee
- Rep. Marilyn Lee
- Rep. Sylvia Luke
- Rep. Barbara Marumoto
- Rep. Angus McKelvey
- Rep.Hermina Morita
- Rep. Mark Nakashima
- Rep. Scott Nishimoto
- Rep. Blake Oshiro (made motion to call vote)
- Rep. Marcus Oshiro
- Rep. Karl Rhoads
- Rep. Scott Saiki
- Speaker Calvin Say
- Rep. Maile Shimabukuro
- Rep Roy Takumi
- Rep. Cynthia Thielen
- Rep. Glenn Wakai
- Rep. Jessica Wooley
- Rep. Kyle Yamashita
REPRESENTATIVES WHO VOTED AGAINST HB 444 on Final Reading who Do Not Support
- Rep. Henry Aquino
- Rep. Karen Awana
- Rep. Jerry Chang
- Rep. Corinne Ching
- Rep. Isaac Choy
- Rep. Cindy Evans
- Rep. Lynn Finnegan
- Rep. Sharon Har
- Rep. Ken Ito
- Rep. Michael Magaoay
- Rep. Joey Manahan
- Rep. John Mizuno
- Rep. Kimberly Pine
- Rep. Roland Sagum, III
- Rep. Joseph Souki
- Rep. K. Mark Takai
- Rep. James Tokioka
- Rep. Clifton Tsuji
- Rep. Gene Ward
- Rep. Ryan Yamane
I applaud all the House Reps who voted against the bill.
To many, people HB 444 appears to be a fair compromise to the same-sex marriage issue. It is not.
In 1993, the Hawaii State Supreme Court found the state's refusal to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses discriminatory. However, in 1998 a constitutional amendment passed granting the Hawaii State Legislature the power to reserve marriage to only opposite-sex couples, and the legislature passed a law banning same-sex marriage.
Now the next step for those supporting same-sex marriage will be to use HB 444, if it is enacted into law, as a new weapon to be presented before the courts of Hawaii as a means of showing that the 1988 constitutional amendment was, in fact, unconstitutional. This would then once more open the doors for same-sex marriage to be legislated into law.
Civil unions is not an end in itself but a step by its proponents to achieve gay marriage. Every legislature who voted for HB 444 yesterday knows this.
But it's not a done deal.
If Governor Lingle vetoes the bill, it does not seem that the House will have the necessary votes to override. They need 34 override votes-- so they'll have to pull 3 from the original "nays." My heart tells me that they won't be able to find 3 to flip-flop. I hope not.