Rumor has it that the Legislature may have the votes to redefine marriage in Hawaii.
Before lawmakers rush into redefining humanity’s fundamental building block, they would be wise to reflect on just what such a redefinition would mean.
Hawaii has been dealing with same-sex "marriage" since 1993, when two same-sex couples sued the state for denying marriage licenses based on Hawaii’s longstanding definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
That led the people of Hawaii in 1998 to enact this constitutional amendment: "The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."
The Legislature presented this statement to the people, who responded by passing the amendment with nearly 70 percent of the vote.
The public has not been asked whether the Legislature should have the power to redefine marriage.
The Hawaii Constitution states, "All political power of this State is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people."
The Legislature is duty-bound to honor its servant role. If anyone is to decide the question, it is the people.
Opponents of marriage preservation routinely reduce marriage to a mere government stamp of approval on their personal relationships — as if society, reality and biology should be turned upside down to accommodate the demand of some activists that non-marital relationships be legally assigned a superficial equality with marriage.
But marriage isn’t a matter of personal preferences and "validation" of whatever relationship two or more people may choose.
If someone wants to think of their personal relationship in a certain way, that’s fine. But how we treat marriage under the law has societal consequences, especially for children, and many people understand the benefit of preserving marriage in this way.
The robust, ongoing, public nature of the current debate about marriage demonstrates its importance for everyone; therefore, the future of marriage should be decided by the public as a whole, not just by a few politicians.
Our lawmakers should also consider that Hawaii’s federal court ruled in August 2012 that no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage" exists in the U.S. Constitution. The case is on appeal.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing two similar cases.
Legislators would be foolish to act without waiting for the outcome of these cases.
In addition, just two years ago, the Legislature created civil unions at the request of the current proponents of redefining marriage.
Civil unions started only last year. Clearly, the Legislature should allow sufficient time to accurately assess the effects of its own law before jumping into redefining marriage itself.
Tolerance of same-sex relationships in 2011 now requires that the Legislature be tolerant of those protecting marriage.
Much is at stake for them, whether they be churches, pastors licensed to perform marriages, wedding planners, cake bakers, photographers, dress makers, invitation printers or others who use their creative abilities in connection with a marriage ceremony. Many examples of legal attacks on such people exist in other states.
Therefore, redefining marriage would have to include strong protections against discrimination claims, if any of these people declined to lend their premises or talents for religious reasons.
And protections for schoolchildren and their parents must be included so that they wouldn’t be forced to accept, against their sincerely held beliefs, that two people of the same sex can marry.
These are yet more reasons why lawmakers should wait to see what happens in the current court cases.
"Ready, fire, aim" has never been a prudent approach to anything.
For many people in Hawaii, marriage is, has been and always will be a relationship between one man and one woman.
The Legislature must protect that reality, or it is enforcing an arbitrary orthodoxy, which no government in the U.S. should ever do.
