Will Hanabusa's Political Cowardice on LGBT Issues Come Into Play In The Hawai'i Senate Race?

Last week we took a look at a contentious Senate race shaping up in Hawai'i between progressive incumbent Brian Schatz and more conservative (and corrupt) Colleen Hanabusa. At the time I mentioned that "she can be counted on to vote with Democrats on issues like Choice (though not marriage equality)." I've had some pushback from the Choice community claiming she's not been a good ally on women's health issues-- and we'll get to that in another post-- and some pushback from Hanabusa's own allies saying she's a good ally on LGBT issues. "She's evolved," goes the refrain-- so, basically, a follower, not a leader-- and where Schatz has been a dependable leader on a tough issue that's taken some political courage. Yesterday's Honolulu Star-Advertiser compared the two candidates on LGBT issues, Gay-marriage stance dogs Hanabusa.

In December, when U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa applied for the appointment to replace the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, she told Democratic Party activists she supports marriage equality.

The congresswoman had previously said she always held that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She also had said the definition of marriage should be a matter for the states to decide.

...Hanabusa's evolution places her in line with the Democratic Party's platform, which favors marriage equality. It also puts her in harmony with U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, who was appointed to replace Inouye and is her opponent next year in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Schatz has consistently supported marriage equality.

Her conversion, however, is a potentially sensitive issue for gay-rights activists and their allies in the party's progressive wing. Progressives, along with environmentalists, have become among the most vocal about enforcing fidelity to the party's platform. Marriage equality is a raw subject for many who believe that Democratic politicians have repeatedly let them down.

Gay-rights activists have filed complaints with the party against several state House and Senate Democrats who introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would have asked voters in November 2014 whether marriage in Hawaii should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. The constitutional amendment failed at the Legislature, but the complaints are pending.

...[A]s recently as last summer, as Hanabusa was campaigning for re-election in urban Honolulu's 1st Congressional District, she had said the definition of marriage has always been a matter for the states to decide.

Last spring, after President Barack Obama announced that he supported marriage equality, completing his own evolution on the issue, Hanabusa had said she had always believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Michael Golojuch Jr., chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered caucus, said Hanabusa had the ideal chance to disclose that she changed her position when she was running for re-election or when Obama made his own announcement. Instead, he said, her revelation did not come until December, when she wanted the appointment to fill the Inouye vacancy.

"It was like pulling teeth to get a statement from her at Christmastime when we were looking at replacing Senator Inouye," he said.

Several gay-rights advocates also blame Hanabusa-- who has sought to distinguish herself from Schatz based on her experience, including, among other things, the heavy lifting she often did on legislation in the state Senate-- for the failure of a civil unions bill in the Senate in 2009.

The state House had approved a bill that would have allowed gay couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights as marriage under state law. Hanabusa and other Senate leaders initially indicated there were enough votes in the Senate for the bill, but that support wobbled after public protests from religious conservatives.

After the bill stalled in a divided Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, Hanabusa and others suggested the bill could be pulled from the committee.

But Hanabusa, an attorney, also warned other senators that the bill would likely lead to a lawsuit by gay-rights advocates who would demand marriage equality, citing the successful legal challenge to a civil unions law in Connecticut.

At the last moment, as supporters finally got the bill to the Senate floor, Hanabusa and other Senate leaders engineered an amendment that expanded the legislation to also cover heterosexual couples. The amendment killed the bill as time ran out on the session.

The Senate, under Hanabusa's leadership, did approve a civil unions bill that applied to both gay and heterosexual couples in 2010, legislation also passed by the House in a dramatic end-of-session vote before being vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle. A similar bill was signed into law by Gov. Neil Abercrombie in 2011.

"From my historical perspective, Hanabusa was not our friend when it came to HB 444," Golojuch said of the civil unions fight in 2009.

As her excuse for dragging her feet on marriage equality, Hanabusa whines that "It has taken the nation time to arrive at this point." But the real story is that it has taken Colleen Hanabusa time to arrive at this point. A friend of mine in Honolulu pointed out that "when Hawaii was using its traditions of tolerance and inclusion and Aloha for all, to lead the nation on marriage rights-- Colleen Hanabusa stood in the way. Why choose a politician who waits for the winds to shift, when Hawai'i already has a Senator who helps lead the way? Why choose a politician who changes her position only when the future arrives, when Hawaii already has a Senator who helps shape the future in Hawaii's image?"

You can probably guess that my friend in Honolulu is voting for Schatz, who you can now find on the Blue America Senate page with other progressives fighting off conservatives in the 2014 election cycle.