It was eight years ago that then-candidate for governor Linda Lingle promised that if elected she would not veto domestic partnership legislation.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

“;On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation,”; Lingle said.

Today, a very similar question is before her. Lingle says she plans a series of meetings with supporters and opponents. No one appears to be saying that the campaign words eight years ago are the end of the debate.

In its closing moments, the state House approved a bill 31-20 legalizing civil unions. It is now up to Lingle who has until July 6 to sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without her signature.

Supporters and opponents are watching.

“;Everything has to be in context, I am sure that at that time it wasn't the controversy it is now,”; says Dennis Arakaki, executive director of the Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Catholic Conference and an opponent of the civil unions bill now before Lingle.

“;We are at a different time and a different place. Of course, I want her to support it, but I can't speculate on her true meaning back in 2002,”; says Tambry Young, co-chairwoman of Equality Hawaii, a organization lobbying for Lingle to not reject the legislation.

Even the bill's author, Rep. Blake Oshiro, said that while Lingle's previous comments “;are a good indication and a hopeful sign,”; it is too early to predict victory. Gov. Lingle's office did not respond to requests for comment.

The issue this time around is more complicated because it would permit a civil union between any two unrelated adults, not just same-sex couples. That difference was added to the bill by the state Senate last year and critics says the implications are unknown.

Under the legislation, partners in a civil union would have all the rights, duties and benefits of married couples, but the law specifically says it is not a marriage. Civil unions would offer couples rights, such as being able to file joint state taxes and adopt children.

Linda Smith, Lingle's senior policy adviser, says she is planning to work up a briefing for Lingle with a side-by-side comparison of the rights that married couples have compared to those using the existing reciprocal beneficiaries law and the new rights that would be granted under the civil unions law.

“;What will be the impact on such things as health care, adoption, alimony an visitation rights ... it gives us a chance to seriously analyze the differences between those three and what it means for the community,”; Smith said.

The strategy of the opponents, according to Arakaki, is to stress the unknown costs of the bill.

“;It is not just the same-sex couples, it is the provision that they put in an amendment without review to add opposite-sex couples,”; says Arakaki.

“;That may have a greater impact,”; he says, explaining that an unknown number of heterosexual couples could take advantage of the civil unions law and it could raise benefit costs for businesses.

The supporters are also hoping to talk with Lingle.

“;We want to explain how civil unions will help our families. We feel encouraged that she is going to keep an open frame of mind and make the best possible decision.

Sen. Les Ihara, who helped steer the measure through both the House and Senate, says supporters have a four-point plan to engage the community in a dialog on the issue.

He says supporters want to hold forums with lawyers to discuss legal issues, promote a photo exhibit of gay couples and their families, distribute a film, “;Chasing Rainbows,”; on the issue and then have large meetings with supporters and opponents discussing the issue.

“;It would be a rebuilding of relationships in the midst of a disagreement,”; Ihara said.