If anybody was really wondering whether the people of Hawaii wanted to legalize "same-sex marriage," they got their answer on election day. By 69 to 31 percent, voters approved this amendment to the Hawaii state constitution: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." The "marriage amendment" is finally part of the highest law of the land.
Working against the odds
This was a victory against tremendous odds. Many elite and established organizations in Hawaii came together in opposition to the marriage amendment: the League of Women Voters, the Hawaii State Teachers Association and other unions, the Japanese American Citizens League and other civil rights groups. Protect Our Constitution (POC) run by former legislator Jackie Young, was assisted by a million dollars of funding from the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group in Washington, D.C. Both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin took firm editorial positions against the marriage amendment.
The supporters of the marriage amendment knew they had the support of the people, but translating that support into an effective campaign was not easy. Early on, a fundraising dinner for Save Traditional Marriage '98 (STM '98) featuring author Stephen Covey itself became the topic of controversy when claims were made that people had been "tricked" into coming. Then gay activist Bill Woods filed a complaint against STM '98 before the Campaign Spending Commission. While these hearings backfired—the attorney general declared the donation limits unconstitutional, and STM '98 was vindicated—they consumed valuable time, energy and funds.
Turning points
The contest seemed to turn a corner in mid-October. By this point, Protect our Constitution had splashed pictures of Japanese-American internment camps across newspapers pages and TV screens, in attempt to convince voters that the marriage amendment had nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with "depriving minority rights." Their ad campaign never featured same-sex couples. Their group endorsements never listed gay rights organizations in Hawaii.
At this point, some concluded that the entire POC campaign was intended to fool them. One said to me, 'Why don't they just come out and say what they really want, and why they want it?" Senior Star-Bulletin editor and columnist A.A. Smyser picked up this refrain ("The ad writers want to mix us up") and came out in favor of the amendment.
Meanwhile, Save Traditional Marriage '98 did not respond with defensive or attack ads. It ran an ongoing series of newspaper, radio and TV ads declaring, "You can't have it both ways." If you support traditional marriage, then you should vote "Yes" for the amendment. It was a low-key educational campaign that built over time, and bore tremendous fruit. Much of it was made possible by a $600,000 contribution by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who have a deep commitment to traditional marriage, and a longstanding track record in effective media work.
The campaign came to a head in two televised debates. By the end of these debates, viewers could draw the conclusion that the position in support of the amendment was an honorable and defensible one. Soon thereafter, STM '98 began to run ads featuring their own set of community endorsements. Most effective were the ads with joint pictures of Governor Ben Cayetano and his gubernatorial opponent Linda Lingle (both of whom supported the amendment), allied those with veterans of previous wars, including the Japanese-American members of the famed 442nd regiment of World War II.
Explanations: false and true
Near the end of the campaign, there were a few abrasive and tasteless ads run in favor of the amendment by groups unconnected with STM '98. Not surprisingly, the Human Rights Campaign was eager to claim that these ads made the difference. Their lead strategist, David Smith, says that the people of Hawaii were overcome by "an onslaught of prejudice and fear."
It would be a mistake to conclude that these last-minute ads made any real difference. The hard truth is that the people of Hawaii simply said "no" to court-ordered same-sex marriage, a choice not made through "prejudice and fear" but out of common sense and already-held convictions.
Both sides knew, from the beginning, that 70 percent of the people of Hawaii opposed same-sex marriage. They also knew that polls showed 50 to 60 percent supporting the marriage amendment. The key question was, would support for the amendment rise to match the 70 percent figure? Or would it go down, if people could be convinced that the amendment was not about marriage? We all know the answer: confusion ebbed, support rose and the result was 69 percent.
Who targeted whom?
The opponents of the marriage amendment never targeted the Catholic Church, even though Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo made public statements, Hawaii Catholic Conference executive director Father Marc Alexander was a central figure in the campaign, and Catholics are the largest religious community in Hawaii. Instead, POC preferred to pick on Mormons (Latter-day Saints) and Evangelicals, playing on fears of mainland influence, using stereotypes they criticize when used against them.
They should have been more careful. According to the newly-revised Atlas of Hawaii, Catholics, Mormons and Evangelicals are the three largest religious groups in Hawaii, and they are a valuable part of the diverse society of Hawaii. Groups like the Hawaii Catholic Conference, Hawaii's Future Today, the Hawaii Family Forum and the Alliance for Traditional Marriage represent many of their concerns. Whether current elites like it or not, these communities, and organizations, are not going away.
In any case, it should be remembered that only 49 percent of the citizens of Hawaii claim any religious affiliation. Therefore, the 69 percent who voted for marriage was an extremely diverse group.
The courts: what's next?
The marriage amendment was passed to overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court's 1993 Baehr v. Lewin decision which held that the state's marriage law might violate the state' constitution, and Judge Chang's 1996 Baehr v. Miike decision which concluded that it did. The attorney general, therefore, needs to appear before the Supreme Court as soon as possible and argue that these decisions have been overturned. With the amendment passed, the existing marriage law, reaffirmed in 1994, which defined marriage as a solely heterosexual union should be acknowledged by the court to have been in place the whole time.
The court, however, may do something different. It may conclude that the state legislature has to pass a new bill to reaffirm the marriage law. This is what the supporters of same-sex marriage have been arguing for the last 18 months. This is what the newspapers have repeated endlessly. By the time it decides the case, the court may come to believe it too. This would be a shame because the legislature clearly intended for the amendment to end the controversy.
The legislature: what's next?
Governor Cayetano has announced that in 1999 he will introduce a "domestic partnership" bill to give all of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Within a day, the Advertiser editorialized that this should be done, or that the term "marriage" should be removed from the code.
People can reasonably debate whether all the benefits related to marriage should be solely based on being married. Indeed, the 1997 legislative session passed the so-called "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill, which offers significant benefits to those ineligible to marry. So, you may ask, why isn't that enough? It's a question the governor will have to answer.
If the court forces the legislature to reaffirm the marriage law, and supporters of "same-sex marriage" push hard for a domestic partnership bill as a tradeoff, things will get wild. There will be attempts to make those politicians who supported the marriage amendment feel guilty about denying "rights" to homosexuals, and to pressure them to make up for what they did by voting for domestic partnerships.
The moral of the story
The marriage amendment passed only because a small and courageous group of people joined hands, despite deep differences, to mobilize the voice of the people. Once the call was sounded, ordinary citizens turned out in record numbers to help the amendment pass. The 69 percent vote was not a Democratic or Republican vote, it was a true vote of the people.
But constitutional politics is not meant to be a full-time occupation. People need to get back to their ordinary lives in their families, workplaces, neighborhoods, and places of worship, and allow their elected representatives to govern. The temptation is to forget about politics.
Yet there is no substitute for active citizen participation in the governing process. Whether it involves moments of high drama, like the passage of the marriage amendment, or moments of ordinary civic life, like debates about marriage bills and domestic partnership bills, the people of Hawaii, like every other, must hold their representatives accountable for what they do. We have seen what can happen to the institution of marriage. It should never happen again. If Catholics and other concerned citizens stay involved in the process, marriage will be in safe hands.
