HILO — Two bills making their way through the Legislature aim to clear up confusion surrounding the state’s civil union law. Civil unions were approved last year to bestow upon same-sex couples the same rights and privileges afforded married couples
HILO — Two bills making their way through the Legislature aim to clear up confusion surrounding the state’s civil union law. Civil unions were approved last year to bestow upon same-sex couples the same rights and privileges afforded married couples in the state of Hawaii.
While the law, known as Act 1, was eagerly awaited by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, many couples say they have avoided taking advantage of it since it went into effect on Jan. 1. The reason, they say, is because the wording of the law makes it unclear how those who hold reciprocal beneficiary status can maintain the rights that status affords them while going through the process of entering into a civil union. The current law requires that couples end any reciprocal beneficiary status before joining in a civil union.
LGBT community members have called the resulting lack of protection while couples wait for their civil union to kick in a “reciprocal beneficiary gap,” said Hilo resident Danny Robinson. Robinson and his partner, Allen Castro, were excited at the prospect of entering into a civil union in the state of Hawaii, but have opted to wait until this session’s “housekeeping” bills can clarify the situation.
“We just thought it would be safer to wait until it’s cleared up,” he said Wednesday.
The problem, he said, is that during the gap between ending a reciprocal beneficiary relationship and starting a civil union, the lack of protection could have potentially disastrous results for a same-sex couple.
“If, during that time, one of the people is hit by a bus and taken to Queen’s Medical Center, the other partner has lost visitation rights,” explained Alan Spector, an adviser at Equality Hawaii, an LGBT advocacy group based in Honolulu. “Or his or her ability to speak on behalf of the partner. It basically forces couples already in a reciprocal beneficiary relationship — who want to form a civil union to take on more rights and responsibilities towards each other — it forces them to get divorced first before they can reunite. … People are faced with doing the opposite of what they want to do.”
On Tuesday, House Bill 2569 passed its third reading, moving through the House finance committee and crossing over for consideration by the Senate. Introduced by state Rep. and House Speaker Calvin Say, the bill has faced little resistance, passing out of the House without a single “no” vote.
The bill ensures that couples seeking a civil union “shall suffer no loss or interruption of any rights, benefits, protections, or obligations derived from their reciprocal beneficiary relationship.” It also clarifies that a person who refuses to perform a solemnization of a civil union will not be subject to civil actions, something for which several religious leaders throughout the state lobbied, arguing that they should not be forced to perform a ceremony to which they are religiously opposed.
Meanwhile, Senate Bill 2571, introduced by Les Ihara Jr., D-District 9, passed its third reading Tuesday in the Senate and moved on to the House. Two state senators voted against the bill: Mike Gabbard, D-District 19, and Sam Slom, R-District 8.
The bill addresses public employee benefits, property, the establishment of parent-child relationships, and adoption. It also establishes “a transition period for two individuals who terminate their reciprocal beneficiary relationship and enter into a civil union to ensure that both events occur substantially concurrently and that all rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities under the reciprocal beneficiary relationship continue upon entering into the civil union,” according to the latest revision of SB 2571.
