In an article in the New York Times,
I am personally not in favor of laws easing limits on same-sex marriage but I am not really going to be on the front lines supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Hawaii is the country's most ethnically diverse state and is a top vacation getaway as well. It has always been regarded, in my mind at least, to be a very liberal place where almost anything goes. I would not be surprised if the Senate allows Hawaii to allow civil unions. I feel this way because as I said before, Hawaii is a very liberal place and if any state is going to allow same-sex civil unions, it's going to be Hawaii that is thousands of miles away from the continental US. The democrats have an edge over the republicans in the Senate and that will help them pass this measure.
Groups in Hawaii have been working to shut down this attempt because of the belief that it would erode the strong and highly important conventional family values that Hawaii has. They are also worried about the influence it would have on the children. The fact that they are worried about children being influenced by this is absurd. There are more things on television that would severely negatively impact a child than seeing two men holding hands or kissing by the beach. Hawaii might want to embrace this because Hawaii would be the only nice, warm state to allow civil unions and that might boost their tourism rates. California reversed a decision allowing same-sex marriages over the summer.
Overall, the republicans are going to be distraught seeing that slowly slowly states are becoming more and more liberal allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The only way to stop all of this is either to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage or to regain control of the House and the Senate to further prevent states from "turning". It doesn't personally bother me but it would be different and shocking to see it starting to happen more and more often.