Gov. Linda Lingle returned Saturday from a two-week journey to Asia confronting the same thorny question as when she left _ to sign or veto legislation that would allow gay couples to form civil unions.
The measure has been on the Republican governor’s desk since May 3, a few days after the state House granted it final approval. But the suspense is growing now because by law, Lingle is required by Monday to publicly identify the bills still on her desk that she might veto.
If the civil unions legislation appears on that list, its allies and foes will have to wait longer _ perhaps until July 6, the legal deadline by which the governor must decide to veto or sign the bill, or allow it to become law without her signature.
“We appreciate the time that she is taking to listen to both sides and to make a very wise decision on her part,” said Dennis Arakaki, executive director of the Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Catholic Conference, which oppose the bill.
Alan Spector, a board member of Equality Hawaii, one of the groups backing the measure, said, “We know that the governor is giving this her full consideration and only she knows how she is going to proceed.”
The legislation, the only pending state civil unions or domestic partnership proposal in the nation, would allow same- and opposite-gender couples to establish government-recognized relationships with the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.
If it does not appear on Lingle’s potential veto list, it would become law with or without her signature.
Her decision on the bill comes while a federal judge in California considers the constitutionality of a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, and the Obama Administration pushes to end the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that forbids openly gay service members.
Before she boarded an airplane on June 4 bound for China and Japan to promote trade and tourism, the governor spent at least two days meeting privately with groups on both sides.
“This is something that people feel very strongly about on both sides,” she said at a June 1 press conference. “I don’t want whatever decision I make to in any way diminish one side or the other, or make one side or the other feel I’m being judgmental in any way.”
Of course, someone is going to be unhappy. Individuals and groups on both sides, from Hawaii and the mainland, have deluged Lingle’s office with letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls.
As of Friday, almost 19,900 communications regarding HB 444 has been received, with 85 percent opposed and 15 percent in favor, said Lingle spokeswoman Corrie Heck.
Republican Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona, with whom Lingle has won two statewide campaigns, adamantly opposes the measure, as does the state GOP. The state Democratic Party supports it, as did most of the Legislature’s Democrats and two of its eight Republicans.
Business groups have sent conflicting signals. The Hawaii Business Roundtable in a recent letter asked Lingle to veto the bill, calling its retroactive effective date and other wording problematic.
But last week, five international firms with Hawaii operations that are Roundtable members announced their strong support for the bill. And the head of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii said Friday the measure would have “minimal impact” on business.
The governor’s office insists that Monday’s list is simply a legally required procedure that foretells nothing about the eventual fate of those measures.
That’s the message groups supporting HB 444 are conveying to members.
“Placement on this list simply means that she wishes the full amount of time to consider her options _ and don’t panic,” said Donald Bentz, an Equality Hawaii spokesman.
But Garret Hashimoto, chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition, which opposes the bill, said the bill’s appearance on the list would be a strong indication “that she will veto it.”
Both sides say they will continue lobbying if Lingle decides to take more time to ponder the issue. And if she eventually vetoes it, supporters say they are prepared to go to court.
“Our papers are ready,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a gay rights advocacy group. “If the bill is vetoed, we will sue.”
