Hawaii House Panel Advances Marriage Equality Bill


The Hawaii House Committees on Judiciary and Finance have advanced the marriage equality bill, sending the measure to the House floor for a second reading and full vote.

Think Progress adds:

The committees added three amendments to the bill. The first set the start date for December 2, 2013. The second removed section 572-C from the bill, which asserted parents’ rights and responsibilities including paternity, maternity, and parentage presumptions based on marriage. Lastly, the committee added religious protections similar to those included in Connecticut’s marriage equality law, protecting religious organizations from having to participate in the solemnization of a same-sex marriage.

During the debate, Rep. Bob McDermott (R), who is suing to block the legislature from passing marriage equality, attempted to substitute his own bill proposing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but he was blocked from proceeding. Several other lawmakers attempted to add amendments that would allow businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples, but they were not considered.


  1. Francis #1 says

    A couple of the votes that were supposed to be yes changed their vote to no with this vote. What does that mean for the full House vote? Because Civil Beat reported numbers had it at 27. That’s one above the number necessary for passage. If a few lawmakers are now wavering, things could turn bad.

  2. Kevin says

    All due respect to Civil Beat,they did bad reporting on Woodson or at least should have updated their list.
    He was known to be a no vote weeks ago and told a newspaper last week he was voting no.

  3. Francis #1 says

    Thank you, Kevin. So without Woodson and Carroll, that would be 25 and one vote short of passage. I guess we should ignore Civil Beat’s numbers. Anyway, all indications are it’s somewhere between 24-28 votes, you have to believe. Could go either way. We’ll see what happens tomorrow.

  4. says

    My takeaway was that SB-1 could not be drafted to a few Reps (Har & Ward in particular) specifications without allowing for discrimination based on ‘personal conscience’ despite testimony from Hawaii SC Justice Levinson that personal conscience objections to public accommodation has already been prohibited by SCOTUS. They seemed hell bent on ignoring that information.

  5. simon says

    If “personal conscience exemption” is what the few godly legislators want, let them have it as long as they vote for it. They essentially will pass a law with a exemption part which is invalid and has no effect. Later they will discover “God. What have I done?”

Leave A Reply