by Andrew Walden

The Case family’s Star-Advertiser headline trumpets: “Group backtracks on civil unions”.  Case family ally Pierre Omidyar’s Civil Beat purports to explain: “Why the Roundtable Quieted Its Civil Unions Storm.”

The mis-named Human Rights Campaign cheers as “Hawaii Business Roundtable Revises Call For Veto of Civil Unions Bill.” 

But if one looks more closely, the revision is the opposite of what all of these gay marriage advocates make it seem. 

In its June 4 letter the Business Roundtable called for a veto of HB444 and urges “that a Commission be established to develop a recommendation for the State Legislature to consider in 2011.”  This implies Business Roundtable support for an improved Civil Unions bill in 2011. 

But in the June 23 letter, Business Roundtable Executive Director Gary K. Kai emphasizes: “Neither the Executive committee, in its letter, nor the Board of the Hawaii Business Roundtable has taken a position on Civil Unions.”

If that is a “backtrack” it can only be a step away from supporting civil unions. 

Even to the engaged reader, SA and CB coverage gives the appearance that the Business Roundtable has withdrawn its call for a veto.  This is false.  The June 23 letter makes no retraction, stating only: “Unfortunately the use of the word veto has become equivalent to some, as a position against civil unions.” 

Then finally the Business Roundtable’s June 23 letter makes this seemingly innocuous statement which is actually quite amusing when closely examined:

“We would like to make it clear that the Hawaii Business Roundtable opposes any form of discrimination, including any based on race, religion, political or sexual orientation.”    

Race is perceived by many people as an innate characteristic.  Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US and State Constitutions.  But can the Business Roundtable truly oppose discrimination “based on political … orientation?”  The entire purpose of the Business Roundtable’s letter is to “discriminate”—to weigh the relative benefits of the various options before the Governor and the Legislature--regarding HB444.  Voters engage in such “discrimination” every time they cast a ballot—“discriminating” in favor of candidate R and against candidate D or vice-versa.  Discrimination based on political orientation is fundamental to the functioning of a democracy, although it is sometimes illegal when used to make employment or contracting decisions.  So to lump together “discrimination based on political or sexual orientation” is to laugh in the face of the gay lobby’s claim that homosexuality is an inborn, innate characteristic. 

Undaunted, Volcanic Ash Columnist David Shapiro writes:

The Roundtable, which represents 44 of Hawai’i's biggest companies, has always been one of our most respected business groups, with views on public policy issues that have carried much weight.

But the group comes out of this fiasco looking like babbling idiots on civil unions and with its overall credibility greatly tarnished. Its attempt to provide guidance has provided only an embarrassing distraction from which the governor can take no guidance.

On the other side of the ball, gay rights groups like Citizens for Equal Rights, the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG-Oahu and Equality Hawaii did a masterful job of turning the Roundtable by putting individual member companies on the spot, serving warning that they’ve matured into a potent political force not to be messed with.

Shapiro has it exactly backwards. The June 4 letter implied a pro-civil unions position.  The June 23 letter clearly takes no position on civil unions.  And the specific call to veto HB444 still stands.

At times like this it may be difficult, but do not forget: these activists are demi-gods who generously deign to lead the ignorant masses Back to the Garden of Eden.  They are enlightened, conscious, and progressive.  They are smarter than we are.  Try to remember this.  And stop laughing. 

---30---

June 23, 2010

Dear Governor Lingle:

In a letter to you dated June 4, 2010, the executive committee of the Hawaii Business Roundtable respectfully recommended the veto of HB444.  Unfortunately the use of the word veto has become equivalent to some, as a position against civil unions.  We would like to make it clear that the Hawaii Business Roundtable opposes any form of discrimination, including any based on race, religion, political or sexual orientation.  Neither the Executive committee, in its letter, nor the Board of the Hawaii Business Roundtable has taken a position on Civil Unions.

As employers, we are responsible for administering all of the laws and regulations relating to the people who work to make Hawaii’s economy function.  The letter sent to you was to express our concerns regarding the administrative challenges to the implementation of HB 444 in its present form.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary K Kai

Executive Director

Hawaii Business Roundtable

LINK>>>original

  *   *   *   *   *

June 4, 2010

Dear Governor Lingle,

The Executive Committee of the Hawaii Business Roundtable, respectfully recommends the veto of HB444. The bill was acted upon in a manner which did not provide time for a meaningful or objective discussion of the many issues that surround the proposed legislation.

While the bill attempts to address inequities in rights and benefits for domestic partners, it creates many more new problems which need to be addressed.  The law stipulates that the implementation be effective 1/1/2010 which is virtually impossible and raises a number of legal issues.   There are a number of questions that arise because of the manner in which the legislation was drafted such as “voidance of the civil union”, and other questions that have implications in the areas of inheritance, employment benefits and property rights.  In addition, the effect of HB444 on pension and retirement benefit plans is also very complex given the confluence of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and the federal tax code, especially given the effective date of 1/1/2010.

It is recommended that a Commission be established to develop a recommendation for the State Legislature to consider in 2011.  The Commission should include representatives from a broad constituency to provide thoughtful input which could result in meaningful legislation that will minimize the potential for legal challenges and long term problems.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary K. Kai

Executive Director

Hawaii Business Roundtable

LINK>>>original

CB: What it Means to be a One-Newspaper Town

The black front-page above the fold headline in the Star-Advertiser said: "Veto of civil unions bill is not group's position." The italic sub-headline said, "The Business Roundtable clarifies its statement, reacting to internal dissent and other pressures." The article was on Page B3. The headline on the B3 article was fine, but the lede (the first and most important paragraph) was flat-out wrong. It read: "The Hawaii Business Roundtable clarified yesterday that it has not taken a position on a civil unions bill, responding to internal dissent and under pressure from gay rights advocates for urging Gov. Linda Lingle to veto the measure."

The Roundtable has taken a position on the civil unions bill. What it hasn't taken a position on, it now says, is the concept of civil unions. The group wants the governor to veto House Bill 444 because it believes there are "administrative challenges to the implementation of H.B. 444 in its present form."

So, the Star-Advertiser struck out on this one.

CB: Inaccurate "Correction" by Star-Advertiser

Here's what the correction says:

"The Hawaii Business Roundtable has clarified that it has not taken a position on civil unions. The Roundtable has urged Gov. Linda Lingle to veto the civil unions bill because of administrative concerns about implementation. A Page B3 article Thursday described the group's position incorrectly."

I pointed out this error on Civil Beat Friday. It is true that the article described the group's position incorrectly. But what the correction fails to acknowledge is that the error occurred in an above-the-fold, front-page headline Thursday, not just in the article. That headline was what most people will remember. Not the Page B3 article. If the paper is going to use a tabloid/magazine-style front page, with just one centerpiece article surrounded by a number of headlines telling readers what's inside the paper, it needs to treat those headlines as objects that have value in and of themselves. That means they need to be corrected, too.

And it needs to treat its website like it's actually part of the same publication. I've written about how the paper is essentially ignoring the web. If you want a good example, take a look at how the print correction in this case is treated on its website.

If you read the erroneous B3 article online today, you'd never know that it was incorrect. There's no sign on the page that a correction was published or that the premise of the story was wrong. You can find a copy of the correction in a separate location, but it's not connected to the article. The paper is essentially doing what papers did 15 years ago on the web, and that's shoveling what they produce for the paper online. That's not good enough for the only paper in town.