When asked which of the candidates he might favor in an upcoming election, an acquaintance prefaced his response with, “;Well, if I were a single-issue voter ... “;

Why I was surprised, I don't know. I shouldn't have been because he has never been shy about stating his strong beliefs and principles, but with the modifying preamble, he indicated his choice was more reasoned, that he had weighed other matters as well.

Many voters consider the whole of a candidate. Many voters do not, which throws elections into a cramped boiler of “;for”; or “;against,”; where the heat sterilizes all else except a lone issue.

We get to choose a new governor this year.

The two candidates representing the major political parties share solutions for many of the problems that burden Hawaii and both appear to have enough smarts to take on the anticipated and the unexpected.

In the standard playbook for political office, Democrat Neil Abercrombie and Republican Duke Aiona similarly want to create better conditions for small businesses, improve education, increase public safety and government services while reducing bureaucracy and boost the economy. They both favor the fuzzily encompassing matter of sustainability.

What sets them apart is civil unions, the single issue that too many voters will apply when choosing one or the other.

Civil unions—a dispassionate designation opponents reject in name and aim—would give gays and lesbians as well as heterosexual men and women the option of pledging fidelity to their loved ones and receiving the legal rights and advantages and public acknowledgment of their joining.

Adversaries, mainly members of religious organizations, say civil unions will crack open the doors to same-sex marriage. They are wrong. The doors would be wide open should Gov. Linda Lingle allow the legislation to become law with or without her blessing.

The only difference will be semantic and since the language police haven't yet taken over completely, couples in civil unions will probably be calling their ties “;marriages.”;

Churches won't be forced to sanctify civil unions nor to recognize them, but church leaders warn that civil unions will erode religious freedom and beliefs, that eventually their communities will be required to accept all comers. Given past rulings and the orientation of the federal courts, that fear is unfounded.

Still, fear is a powerful elixir, but it should not be allowed to block reasonable decisions among supporters and opponents of civil unions.

Though politicians are often maligned, deservedly in many cases, judging them on one issue shortchanges candidates and voters themselves.

If a candidate favors civil unions, but supports myriad other initiatives detrimental to the community, the candidate shouldn't become a leader.

Members of the House have been roundly criticized for passing the civil unions bill right before the end of the session, as if tardiness taints a vote duly weighed and considered with reason.

Calls to throw them out of office are certainly the prerogative of their constituents, but voters would do better to widen their perspective and consider the sum, not simply the solitary.