Debi Hartmann's transformation from a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage to ardent proponent of civil unions did not happen overnight.

It stemmed from the gradual realization, intensified by an analysis she did as part of her graduate work in political science, that a law she had helped create discriminates against the children of gay and lesbian parents. This Mormon mother of three and grandmother of six said she did not comprehend at the time that the reciprocal beneficiary agreements she promoted in the late 1990s as a fair and equal alternative to marriage rights were neither.

“;The RB (reciprocal benefits) law does not give children legal claim on their parents, and that's just not right,”; said Hartmann, 58, now executive director of the state Democratic Party, the party's Oahu county chairwoman and an outspoken supporter of House Bill 444. “;I do this based on a legal justification—one that speaks to equal protection under the law.”;

She expects the civil unions bill to re-emerge this session, despite a voice vote that shelved it in the House after approval in the Senate.

Hartmann remains active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which disapproves of civil unions, but no longer teaches political science at Brigham Young University-Hawaii. She was an adjunct professor until last year, after holding a faculty position from 1995 to 2005.

She has a bachelor's degree in political science from BYU-Hawaii and a master's from the University of Hawaii-Manoa; her doctoral status at UH is ABD (all but dissertation).

Long active in local issues, Hartmann was elected to the state Board of Education, serving from 1988 to 1994, including two years as chairwoman.

She and husband Don Hartmann, a salesman, have lived in Hauula for 27 years and raised three children there, all of whom attended public schools. Their youngest, Alison, 15, is a sophomore at Kahuku High School. Joshua, 33, and Yavette, 39, are married with families of their own. Although work keeps her especially busy in an election year, Hartmann carves out free time for horseback riding and designing and sewing clothes, especially wedding dresses.

QUESTION: What was your reaction to the voice vote in the House on the civil unions bill?

ANSWER: Disheartened.

Q: Were you surprised?

A: Very surprised that it was a voice vote. Would have preferred at least a roll call vote. To know if it might have passed, even if it only passed by a slim margin; would have liked to have known that. If it failed, even what the margin would have been on a fail.

Q: Have you polled the House yourself?

A: No, we did not do a straw poll.

Q: Do you think the issue is dead for this year?

A: No, I do not believe that it's dead. I think if you look back at what happened in the Senate last year (when the bill was stuck in committee), ... at the very last couple of days it was pulled, it was voted on, it was amended, it was voted out. So it may have taken all session but it moved.

Q: Your support—is that your personal position or are you representing the party's position?

A: Both. I have a very strong support, very specifically, because of the children. If you are a child of a gay or lesbian couple, you are denied certain legal rights that any child of a heterosexual couple automatically has. No child should be denied legal claim to their parents, and this bill would have rectified that. And every legislator knows that. We've talked to them. The current RB law does not give children absolute legal claim on their parents.

Q: “;RB”;—that's the reciprocal benefits law?

A: Yes. It truly discriminates on the legal rights of children. We've talked to the other side about this, they acknowledge that exists, but they will not bend.

Q: Realistically, what are the chances of HB 444 being resurrected?

Q: I believe that we as a party, and we who feel strongly about the civil rights in the civil unions law, have a responsibility to make a strong argument that creates a strong platform for any legislator to be able to stand up and say, “;Yes, I can support this and here are legitimate reasons why, that defend this position in the law.”; It's our responsibility to make that kind of argument and I believe we can do that.

Q: So you're still trying?

A: Yes. The doors have not been shut on the discussion or dialogue.

Q: This is a transformation for you. You were a leader of Hawaii's Future Today, which led the fight against same-sex marriage in the 1990s. What changed?

A: I had worked with the senator who created reciprocal beneficiaries and I believed that we had set up laws that gave protections and rights that were equivalent to what heterosexuals had under marriage. ... Later, when I was working on my master's and then doctoral (research), I used same-sex marriage as my thesis and dissertation. So I was doing an in-depth study ... I still stayed very strong about not being for same-sex marriage, but I had always had a conviction that rights were important, that they be fair and equal. (As part of her research, she interviewed same-sex marriage proponents, including frequent adversary Bill Woods Bateman). They asked me if I had actually looked at the rights that reciprocal beneficiaries gave, done an actual comparison to marriage rights under the law. And I said “;no.”; And they said, “;Why don't you try doing that.”; And then they added this: “;Look at the language on what it takes to enter into a reciprocal beneficiary agreement and to get out of it, and then compare that to what it takes to go into a marriage and get out of a marriage. Then decide whether or not you would choose to enter into an RB.”;

Q: So you did that?

A: Yes. It took me about two months, and by then I had sufficient academic knowledge to be able to legitimately do that kind of research and comparison. I was dumbfounded when I discovered that there's no legal protection for children. That if a gay couple in an RB had children and one (partner) decided to leave, all they had to do was pick up and leave, and write a letter to the state Health Department. They didn't even have to notify the partner that they were leaving. The child has no claim on the parent who left, no way for child support, no connection to the grandparents, nothing. No legal claim. And let's say the one who left took the child because they were the legal parent of the child, then the other partner has no right to visitation. And the child has no legal right to ask to see that parent again. We had not put in real protections. And when I went back to the Legislature and said, “;Can we open RB and make some of these changes?”; basically I got the door slammed in my face. I found out that the only way that we were going to make a change was to have civil unions.

Q: How long ago was this?

A: About four years ago.

Q: Do you have regrets about your earlier role?

A: My regret is that I didn't understand what we did wrong. My intentions were absolutely honorable in creating a law that would give protections that I believed we were giving. What I came to realize is when you're ignorant of the law, you can make mistakes, even if you have good intentions.

Q: Has your current position gotten you in any trouble with the Mormon church?

A: No, not with the church. I have been very upfront with my ecclesiastical leaders. I have gone over my testimony ... and I have not violated any dogmas or tenets of the LDS church.

Q: What kind of reaction do you get from people who feel strongly about this issue. How are you perceived?

A: Four years ago, people (in the gay and lesbian community) thought I was a mole ... But when they saw the time, effort and work I was putting in, they said, “;She really has changed, she really is helping and supporting us.”; On the other side, when I sat down with (former allies) like Marc Alexander and Jack Hoag, and they heard the reasons why I had changed my position, even though they had not changed theirs, they understood why I had changed mine.

Q: Let's talk about some other issues, such as education. What do you think of the idea of having an appointed Board of Education?

A: One of the things that we want to look at is how would it be appointed? How do you keep it from becoming a political arm? There has to be a process so you don't have the sole control with one governor, and also so that we don't keep turning over a superintendent every four years. Those are the kinds of questions we have to answer before we can say, yes, an appointed board is viable. ... We are looking at it very seriously.

Q: What are the party's top issues this year?

A: Jobs, jobs, jobs. Stimulating the economy, education and health services.

Q: There are so many hot primary races. How do you handle the competition?

A: We support all Democrats in primaries. We give equal access to information, resources, everything we've got. We help all of them get out the vote, with canvassing, whatever they need. The wonderful thing about my job is that I get to help everybody, smile with everybody, and be absolutely neutral.