Enshrined in the state Constitution is the guarantee of equal rights for all, barring discrimination on the basis of sex. Despite the reciprocal benefits statute on the books, heterosexual and same-sex couples do not have equal rights, and civil unions represent a reasonable means to bring equality to all.

But House Bill 444, set for a hearing in the state Senate today, is the wrong vehicle. Instead of an effective bill advocating for equal rights for same-sex couples, the poorly worded bill equates civil unions with same-sex marriage: "Partners in civil unions," it asserts, "shall have all the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law ... as are granted to spouses in a marriage."

In doing so, it disregards the 1998 vote in which about 70 percent of voters passed a Constitutional amendment setting up a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

In its present form, HB444 clearly is an end run around the 1998 vote.

Many of the lawmakers who favor civil unions believe the public sentiment has changed in the past 10 years, and they may be right.

But the only way to test this theory is to ask Hawai'i voters directly, not simply ignore the earlier vote now on the books. Lawmakers should put the issue to another vote.

Other states have enacted laws aimed at affording same-sex couples equal rights through civil unions with some success — it can be done. The 1996 passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed under the Clinton administration has reassured many in those states that federal benefits and protections of law remain only for heterosexual couples. Civil unions are distinct; they can bridge the glaring equity gap that still exists, and must be fixed.

Following Hawai'i's 1998 referendum, lawmakers attempted to equalize access to state services and protections through the "reciprocal beneficiaries" law, a codification of civil partnerships, including same-sex couples. But reciprocal beneficiaries do not have the same rights and protections under state law as married couples.

For example: A couple's state certification as reciprocal beneficiaries can be dissolved through a simple, unilateral act. One partner can leave the other by filing for termination, without notifying the other partner and without the protections in the Family Court system afforded to married individuals going through a divorce.

This and other defects in the reciprocal beneficiaries law need to be corrected. But state shouldn't simply use HB444 to skip this step.

If lawmakers want to run roughshod over public sentiment, they should be held accountable to voters in 2010.

It would be far more just if elected leaders would recognize the importance of the 1998 vote. HB444 should be recast to seek a new amendment that would take the question to the voters in 2010.

State lawmakers still haven't fulfilled their constitutional duty to provide equal rights for same-sex couples under state law. But voters deserve a chance to re-examine the issue of civil unions, and to be asked which course to follow toward that goal.

Such an important and emotionally charged decision should not be imposed by a few. Let the voters decide.