Hawaii voters asked to protect same-sex marriage

In November 1998, Hawaii adopted a constitutional amendment granting the legislature the authority to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples after they won a clear majority in an election.

Twenty-six years later, voters will have a chance to reverse that decision, which has been rendered irrelevant — at least for now — by the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

In the November 5 general election, the new ballot will be on the following question: “Should the state constitution be amended to repeal the authority of the legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples?”

The proposal comes as the island nation gains a reputation as a leader in efforts to legalise same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage was legalized by law in Hawaii two years before the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. However, the state constitution still includes language granting lawmakers the “authority to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples.”

Supporters say passing the new constitutional amendment would remove discriminatory provisions and send a clear message that Hawaii stands for equal rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade on abortion rights also raised concerns that same-sex marriage and other rights could be threatened by the conservative court.

But opponents of the 2024 vote say it is a display of political intimidation by the state’s liberal Democratic majority and that marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman.

Changing attitudes

In 1998, 59 percent of voters favored giving the legislature authority over gender and marriage. Just one-third of voters, or 34 percent, voted against the proposal.

The Legislature has never acted on this authorization, but same-sex marriage supporters want to remove it from the Constitution to avoid ambiguity.

In April, the Legislature agreed to put the ConAm question on the ballot. Of the 76 members, only one Republican in the Senate and five in the House voted against the initiative, as did one Democrat in the House.

U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda was among those who testified in strong support for the legislation, citing last year’s Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

“As someone who has fought for more than a quarter-century to establish and protect marriage equality in Hawaii, I will not stand by and watch this court dismantle my hard-won rights,” she wrote.

Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi, City Council members Esther Kiaaina and Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii and the Democratic Party of Hawaii also supported the proposed amendment.

Only a handful of those who testified opposed it.

“This is an attempt to codify a political opinion in the state constitution,” wrote Cari Sasaki. “If the opposite were proposed, that the legislature could not constitutionally define marriage as anything other than one man and one woman, liberals would honestly lose their minds. This bill is political intimidation by the majority party.”

“Marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” David Ruiz testified.

Concerns about empty votes

So far this year, the ConAm marriage hasn’t attracted as much attention as the 1998 version. For example, this year marked the beginning of Mike Gabbard’s political career, which has publicly and vigorously condemned homosexuality.

Last year, however, state Sen. Gabbard voted in favor of ConAm 2024, explaining that his views on marriage had changed over the years.

Jeff Hong was the chairman of the Change 23 Coalition, a local group that pushed for the referendum initiative. (The marriage clause is found in Section 23 of the state constitution.) Its partners include the Hawaii LGBT Legacy Foundation, the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the ACLU Hawaii, Papa Ola Lokahi and the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement.

The biggest concern among advocates is that many voters may not vote on ConAm.

Hong said the coalition has morphed into a nonprofit voter education fund for civil rights in Hawaii. It has launched a campaign to urge voters to vote yes on a constitutional amendment, one of two on the fall ballot. The other concerns the judicial selection process.

The biggest concern among advocates is that many voters may not vote on ConAm.

In order to be ratified, a proposed amendment must be approved by a majority of yeas and nays, and this majority must constitute at least 50% of all votes cast in the election, including blank votes and over-represented votes.

“While we see a lot of positive momentum moving forward, the apathy of the empty votes is working against us,” Hong said. “And we need to make sure that Hawaii voters realize that in this election, if you support the initiative, you have to vote for it. Don’t leave the question empty.”

The Hawaii Family Forum, a faith group formed in 1998, played an active role in adopting ConAm this year. The forum works with the local Catholic Conference.

Eva Andrade, president and CEO of the Hawaii Family Forum, said the group has not yet decided whether to take a position on ConAm. She said the group is focusing on consumer issues this election year, given concerns about the economy.

For example, the forum’s 2024 voter guide makes no mention of ConAm. But Andrade said the forum will conduct a modest education campaign to make sure voters know what it means to leave a question on the ballot unanswered.