You'd never know it from reading the newspaper on the mainland, but the biggest story of the '90s broke last month, and it's local: "Democracy triumphs in Hawaii! Read all about it!"

Finally, the people will vote on the question of marriage.

Four years ago, the Hawaii Supreme Court threatened to legalize "same-sex marriage" when it issued a ruling which said that the state's marriage law was "sex discrimination" under the Hawaii State Constitution. The decision set into motion an unprecedented political crisis.

On April 29, the Hawaii State Legislature finally responded by passing a proposed amendment in the Hawaii Constitution which will appear on the November 1998 ballot for citizen ratification.

the amendment is short and to the point: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."

the amendment puts the power to decide the legal definition of marriage where it belongs -- in the hands of the elected representatives of the people. It does not deprive anyone of civil or constitutional rights. In fact, it does not even guarantee that marriage will continue to be defined as male plus female! It simply allows the people of Hawaii to decide the issue through the democratic process.

Why is that good? Why should supporters of traditional marriage be happy? Because this amendment allows their voice -- the voice of the large majority of citizens -- to be heard. Without the amendment, marriage may be redefined by a small group of judges.

So the amendment bill was a victory for tradition marriage, but the struggle is not over. The amendment needs to be ratified by the people in the next election. There will be many attempts, over the next year-and-a-half to throw up obstacles to its ratification. Will the amendment succeed or fail? The answer depends on the people who support it.

Reasons to celebrate

For the moment, however, some celebration is in order. This victory was not supposed to happen.

Hawaii was supposed to be an easy win for "same-sex marriage" advocates across the country. From San Francisco to New York City and Washington, D.C., they watched the Hawaii situation with keen interest and anticipation. With great confidence they said to themselves "Hawaii is multicultural, tolerant, supportive or civil rights, Democratic, Asian, and less Christian than the mainland. History is on our side. There is no way we can lose this battle."

"Just think about it," they thought. "We've got the courts, the executive branch, many key legislators, major media, and key allies in the labor, civil rights and civil liberties communities. We'll remind everybody of World War II, the civil rights movement, and the tyrrany of the majority. We'll ask them to be fair and compassionate in the true spirit of aloha. How could they possible say no?"

Well, the people did say no. They looked through those arguments and saw that the effort to legalize "same-sex marriage" was really an attempt to redefine marriage itself -- without their participation.

For the same reasons they oppose racism, and support tolerance and civil rights, the people rushed to the defense of marriage.

What's the connection? Marriage is that unique male-female sexual community which is the foundation of family and society, where people learn to be tolerant of sexual and racial differences, to respect the rights of fellow human beings, and to participate in the community. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage will actually weaken people's sense of tolerance.

Supporters of "same-sex marriage" find this hard to understand, but most people understand it. The people understand that marriage and individual rights are compliment, rather than contradict, one another. They reject the attempt of an intellectual and cultural elite to redefine the institution of marriage by manipulating the constitution. The people have united across cultural, racial and religious lines to defend marriage and the democratic process.

Reasons to worry

But democracy is also about compromise. When our lawmakers passed the constitutional amendment bill, a heavy price had to be paid: the passing of a "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill that offers many new rights and benefits to those who can't legally get married. The lawmakers had concluded that some tradeoffs would be necessary, which resulted in some additional give and take. Supporters of the amendment strove to chip away at any part of the bill which they thought might endorse nonmarital sexual relationships and weaken marriage's special legal status.

As it turned our, the original state House of Representative's version of the "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill was the best, the original state Senate's version was the worst, and the end result was somewhere in between.

Fortunately, while the new law will give many benefits to unmarried pairs, it doesn't set up a new status (such as "domestic partnership") that is the equivalent of marriage. "Reciprocal beneficiary" benefits are equally available to a son and his widowed mother or to a same-sex couple. And the law still gives preference to married couples where children are concerned. In addition, the law is only a statue; it can be revised.

Among the rights listed in the "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill are hospital visitation, owning property in the form of "tenancy by the entirety," filing "wrongful death" suits, inheriting the "elective share" of an estate, and health insurance.

For instance, private employers whose medical benefits include traditional "family" coverage will now have to be paid by the employee. Only time will tell what social and economic effects this new law will have on the people of Hawaii.

Reasons to watch

Although the legislature has acted, the Supreme Court is not out of the picture. It could decide the marriage case before the people ever vote on the constitutional amendment. The Baehr v. Miike case -- which started this mess, and which the state lost on trial last fall -- is on appeal back to the Supreme Court, and both sides are in the process of submitting their briefs. Many organizations, including the Hawaii Catholic Conference, are also submitting "amicus" (friend of the court) briefs.

The Supreme Court could therefore hear the case before November 1998 and legalize "same-sex marriage" at any time, plunging Hawaii into a social experiment of cosmic proportions.

The lawyers advocating same-sex marriage are praying the court will do just that. If it doesn't, they may file suit in federal court, arguing that the issue should be taken away from voters.

What argument could they offer? The same old tired reasons they have offered all along: that male-female marriage laws are an expression of hate and bigotry, and a disgrace to a democratic society. These arguments may be unpersuasive to citizens, but lawyers can always seek out an "open-minded" judge.

Reasons to work

Likewise, outside the courthouse in the arena of public opinion, the people of Hawaii can expect massively-funded efforts from the mainland designed to convince them that the proposed constitutional amendment is an expression of "hate" and "prejudice." You can count on it. All the organizations who funded "party kits" for the national celebration of the "Ellen -- I am a Lesbian" TV show, such as Human Rights Campaign will be pouring money into the campaign to defeat the proposed amendment. This is their right, of course, in a democratic society -- just as it is the right of the people to make up their own minds.

That leaves the people of Hawaii with a tremendous responsibility for the fate of marriage. They have spoken clearly and their elected representatives have heard them and responded. Now every citizen has a duty to understand the issue and to cast his or her vote. From the recent Hawaii Supreme Court decision (which ended up canceling the constitution convention), we know that blank and spoiled ballots count as "no" votes. Ever "yes" vote has to chosen clearly.

Reasons to hope

Polls show a decisive majority in support of male-female marriage, but some uncertainty about the constitutional amendment. Once people understand that the amendment merely gives the legislature the power to address the question -- its does not resolve the marriage question itself -- there should be many people who will vote for it simply to support the democratic process.

It looks like a victory for marriage -- an democracy. But it's not over yet. Will the court wait? Will the people and their representatives have the last word? Rightly so, the answer to this question lies with you.