[cross-posted at DLCC.org]
Ten days – that’s how long we have to make our voices heard on a crucial piece of equal rights legislation. Republican Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has announced that she’ll decide whether to sign or veto her state’s new civil unions bill when she returns from an overseas trip.
Gov. Linda Lingle will decide whether to sign or veto a contentious proposal to allow same-gender couples to form civl [sic] unions after returning from a two-week-long working trip to China and Japan, she said yesterday. (...)
Speaking at a state Capitol news conference, Lingle said she likely will take until June 21, the deadline by which she must tell the Legislature which bills she may veto. She then has until July 6 to veto those measures if that is the action she chooses.
Measures not on the June 21 list would become law, either with or without her signature.
Lingle's trip to Asia begins Friday and she is due to return June 19.
Given the impact her decision will have on many of her state’s residents, it’s unfortunate that Governor Lingle will not also be stopping in Australia or New Zealand, both of which provide for same-sex civil unions (nationwide in New Zealand, but only in certain Australian political subdivisions). If she did, she would realize that human society has not, in fact, collapsed in either country – rather it has been strengthened.
But so long as the Governor plans on waiting until after this trip to make her decision, we plan to have one last batch of petitions waiting for her when she returns.
If you haven’t already, please click here to add your voice.
If Governor Lingle signs the Hawaii civil unions bill, she will only be keeping a promise she made during her 2002 campaign for governor:
It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.
"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said.
Whether sincere or not, Lingle probably never expected that civil unions would come to occupy the "middle ground" of American politics as quickly as they did. 2002 was before Massachusetts became the first civil marriage equality state, and it was just two years after progressive Vermont approved civil unions because of a court ruling that was extremely controversial at the time. In that context, Lingle coming out in favor of civil unions in 2002 – as a Republican – put her at the vanguard of the equal rights movement nationwide.
Was it nothing more than shameless pandering – a ruse to burnish her "moderate" credentials in a heavily Democratic state? Or was it something else?
One June 21st, Hawaiians will find out once and for all.
Help us make sure she does the right thing.