THE election campaign that ended today brought the biggest national intervention in Hawaii since statehood -- and it wasn't pretty. Marriage issue was
deliberately confusedThree million dollars may have been spent, mostly from the mainland, to battle pro-con over gay marriage. Each side acknowledged spending over $1 million and said the other spent more than it did.
I have a jaundiced view of the "no" advocates, starting with those in key legislative positions. The ballot question was framed so that blank votes affirm same-sex marriage. This gave gay marriage the advantage of all the voters actually voting "no" plus all ballots left blank.
The rule that blank votes count as "no" on constitutional questions (but not, for example, on Honolulu City Charter questions) was laid down by the state Supreme Court after the 1996 Con Con election.
That decision created a big flap because the yeses had exceeded the actual noes. First reports had said Con Con was approved. That's the key reason the Legislature gave us a chance to vote again on Con Con this year.
My hunch is that in the tough House-Senate battling over same-sex marriage the more liberal Senate bloc prevailed to the extent of submitting today's amendment proposal in a convoluted way that gave gay marriage maximum advantage.
Campaigns ideally inform and educate. The people wanting a "no" vote to ratify same sex-marriage, however, chose a strategy of creating confusion.
Their biggest piece of bunk is that a yes victory would be a step toward sending citizens back to internment camps, as in World War II. That policy was a federal government action, not a Hawaii one. There are strong barriers against a repeat.
It is equally dishonest to suggest a yes victory would threaten the right of choice in abortion, destroy our state Bill of Rights or destroy our Supreme Court.
We would be giving the Legislature the right to reverse the Supreme Court's 3-2 majority on this single issue -- no more. The public would have spoken, as it has a right to -- at great cost. The Legislature would be re-empowered to speak on this single issue. And that's all.
There is a simple reason why gay marriage advocates chose their tactics of confusion. Early polls showed them trailing by something like 70-30 on a straight-forward presentation of the question: Shall Hawaii legalize marriage between persons of the same sex? Had the amendment been presented in that form, blank votes would have supported traditional marriage, and traditional marriage would have won overwhelmingly.
Instead we were asked: "Shall the Constitution of the State of Hawaii be amended to specify that the Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples?" If noes plus blank ballots carry the day, the matter will be returned to the Supreme Court, which already has spoken. We will become the first gay-marriage state in America.
SUCH is politics, but I much prefer the politics of illumination rather than confusion. The governor's race came closer to that standard. The two candidates went face to face with each other four times, twice on TV. Their claims and counter-claims mostly could be checked against the record.
In an election where change was the paramount issue it pretty much came down to whe-ther we can profit from a new face in the job, or whether the old face is trying hard enough.
It will be a tough night for the loser -- but both candidates can feel they gave it their all and held to a high level.
Same-sex marriage:
Past articles
A.A. Smyser is the contributing editor
and former editor of the the Star-Bulletin
His column runs Tuesday and Thursday.
