Apparently the last time Hawaii really frightened the rest of the states was in 1993, when our state Supreme Court wrote the ruling that started the whole same-sex marriage debate.

It started with the argument by Steven Levinson, then an associate justice of the state Supreme Court. He said Hawaii needed to demonstrate "a compelling state interest" to deny marriage licenses to three same-sex couples.

The ruling momentarily set Hawaii on a trajectory to give the legal OK to gay marriage. Then public pressure forced a state constitutional amendment giving the state Legislature the specific right to write a law saying who could get married.

Men and women could get married, nobody else, the Legislature had already said, so the fight for equality would have to be by political action, not Hawaii’s courts.

But the very idea that a state would sanction marriage between gay partners drove Congress to make a federal law dictating who could get married.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act passed Congress in 1996, with Hawaii’s entire congressional delegation — Sens. Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye and Reps. Neil Abercrombie and Patsy Mink — all voting "No."

In fact Akaka and Inouye were two of just 14 senators to vote no.

Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision essentially slapped some common sense and decency into Congress and tossed out the Defense of Marriage Act.

"It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in his Supreme Court opinion.

But Kennedy noted that the states were recognizing "the beginning of a new perspective, a new insight."

"That same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other," he said.

Hawaii is no longer pivotal, a linchpin or in any way a big player in the same-sex marriage debate.

The blogger, Nate Silver, tallied up the states that, because of this week’s decision, will make same-sex marriage legal. He added up the states that already have declared marriage open to gay couples and calculated that Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia, and now California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Washington will by August be states where gays can marry.

It is such an expanding trend that it is somewhat curious how Gov. Neil Abercrombie, one of Hawaii’s most passionate supporters of same-sex marriage, was rhetorically flat-footed in his reaction to the Supreme Court ruling.

"I believe my position to support a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Hawaii and elsewhere was given a substantial boost by today’s Supreme Court rulings. I will continue to work to assure justice and equality for all," he said in a statement and didn’t go any further in a press interview.

Abercrombie seemed more concerned about the state’s lawsuit now pending before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That is a case that could take one or two more years to move for another possible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hawaii could move now to pass a new law deleting the phrase restricting marriage to between a man and woman.

Democratic legislators had the votes to expediently pass the civil unions bills and give Abercrombie one of his first legislative victories. Why then, with the Supreme Court already doing the heavy lifting, are lawmakers and the governor reluctant to take that step?

If Abercrombie has addressed legislators and said, "Mr. Souki, tear down that law," it would have made more sense.

———

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.