Most House reps pleased with gay marriage bill

The majority of Big Island representatives to the state House said they were pleased with the final product of the special legislative session, calling the gay marriage bill a fair balance between equality and religious freedom.

Six of the island’s delegates voted Friday night to approve the legislation, leaving state Rep. Clift Tsuji as the lone dissenter.

On Tuesday, Tsuji called his vote “one of the top three most difficult decisions I’ve had to make” in the Legislature.

“The first one was a vote on taro security and the biotech industry, saying no to GMO taro. I was chair of the agriculture committee, and we heard from hundreds of testifiers. … The next one was on the ceded lands issue involving lands on the Big Island. And now this third one,” he said. “I voted no in the end, and it was a very difficult decision.”

Tsuji explained that his decision ultimately came down to weighing the feedback he had received from constituents in his district.

“Looking at all the different types of correspondence, from postcards to written emails, to phone calls, in my district, basically, 80 percent of them were against the legislation,” he said.

“Now the contention is … that in order to legalize same-sex marriage, the decision would have to go through a constitutional amendment and be ratified by the voters,” Tsuji said. “(Circuit Court) Judge (Karl) Sakamoto has said he would consider a hearing on the same-sex marriage legislation after the marriage law has been passed.”

State Rep. Richard Onishi, D-Hilo, Keaau, Kurtistown, Volcano, said amendments to the bill helped answer the concerns of members of Hawaii’s religious community, allowing them to refrain from performing and taking part in wedding ceremonies that may go against their beliefs.

“I think that in terms of the people who were for the bill, the basic premise for them was to have equal rights, and I think as far as passage of the bill, that’s what it accomplished,” he said.

State Rep. Denny Coffman, D-Naalehu, Ocean View, Captain Cook, Kealakekua, Kailua-Kona, said he saw the debate as a purely civil rights-related issue, not as one of religious freedom. With that in mind, the bill may have done too much in making concessions to the opponents of same-sex marriage.

“That’s where I thought we went too far in the bill, providing all those exemptions,” he said.

For instance, Coffman said, he would have preferred that for-profit organizations not be exempted from providing services to gay couples seeking to be married if doing so would be going against their beliefs.

“We can’t just let people discriminate without addressing it,” he said. “Like all legislation, things are never perfect, but you try to do the best you can.”

Ultimately, Coffman said, Friday’s vote was a vote of conscience for him, rather than based on how many comments he received from constituents.

“I wasn’t concerned with taking numbers and polling. (Opponents) were saying ‘Let the people decide’ … but I think in cases like this, the minority are often outvoted by the majority, even if it’s the right thing to do,” Coffman said.

The final House vote followed a long and contentious special session that featured nearly 57 hours of testimony.

“A lot of people came to testify, and we wanted to give each of them an opportunity to testify,” said state Rep. Nicole Lowen, D-Kailua-Kona, Holualoa, Kalaoa, Honokohau. “There had been some criticism of the Senate for cutting people off, and we wanted to give them the opportunity.”

While the protracted period of testimony could be grueling, Lowen said that it ultimately provided representatives the chance to weigh both sides of a highly controversial and divisive issue.

“Had we heard it during regular session, there would have been more opportunities for distraction,” she said. “In retrospect, I think it was best to have the special session.”

Email Colin M. Stewart at cstewart@hawaiitribune-herald.com.