572B-2 Eligibility to enter into a civil union
572B-3 Civil unions void; when
572B-4 Solemnization; license to perform; refusal to join
persons in a civil union
572B-4.5 Rights held by reciprocal beneficiaries who enter
into a civil union
572B-5 Applicants for civil union; license required;
572B-6 Application for license for persons who wish to
enter into a civil union; fee
572B-7 Persons under control of conservator or guardian
572B-8 Record of solemnization; reported by whom; affidavit;
evidentiary weight of certificate or affidavit
572B-9 Benefits, protections, and responsibilities
572B-9.5 Religious organizations; exemption under certain
572B-10 Unions performed in other jurisdictions
572B-11 References and inclusions
L 2012, c 267, §§16 and 17 provide:
"SECTION 16. [Section retroactive to October 3, 2011. L 2012, c 267, §20(1).] If two individuals terminated a reciprocal beneficiary relationship on or after October 3, 2011, but before the date this Act became law upon its approval [Act effective retroactive to January 1, 2012, and approved July 6, 2012], and the two individuals subsequently enter or entered into a civil union no later than ninety days after their reciprocal beneficiary relationship terminated, their reciprocal beneficiary relationship shall be deemed to continue uninterrupted until the civil union is or was solemnized. The couple shall suffer no loss or interruption of any rights, benefits, protections, or obligations derived from their reciprocal beneficiary relationship, and those rights, benefits, protections, or obligations shall be deemed to have accrued as of the first date they existed under the beneficiary relationship, if they meet the requirements of this section.
For purposes of this section, holding title to property as tenants by the entirety shall be included among the rights of a reciprocal beneficiary relationship that shall continue uninterrupted under this section; provided that no intervening liens were perfected and attached on the property after the reciprocal beneficiary relationship was terminated, and before the date this Act became law upon its approval [Act effective retroactive to January 1, 2012, and approved July 6, 2012].
SECTION 17. Notwithstanding subsection 572C-7(c), Hawaii Revised Statutes, if before the effective date of this section [retroactive to January 1, 2012], two individuals entered into a valid legal union in another jurisdiction that is not a marriage recognized under chapter 572, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and is substantially equivalent to a civil union under chapter 572B, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and are also parties to a reciprocal beneficiary relationship in this State, the reciprocal beneficiary relationship shall terminate and their valid legal union entered into in another jurisdiction shall be recognized as a civil union under section 572B-10, Hawaii Revised Statutes, on the voluntary termination of the reciprocal beneficiary relationship under subsection 572C-7(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, but no later than one year after the date this Act becomes law upon its approval [Act effective retroactive to January 1, 2012, and approved July 6, 2012]."
Civil union or reciprocal beneficiary relationship in existence before December 2, 2013, not invalidated by L Sp 2013 2d, c 1. L Sp 2013 2d, c 1, §11.
Civil unions, public employees' retirement system, see §88-1.2.
Continuity of rights; civil union and reciprocal beneficiary relationships, see §572-1.7.
Law Journals and Reviews
Baehr v. Lewin and the Long Road to Marriage Equality. 33 UH L. Rev. 705 (2011).
The passage of the civil unions law did not render Hawaii's existing marriage laws irrational and unconstitutional. 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (2012).
Complaint challenging the constitutionality of the civil unions law was moot because Act 267, L 2012, amended the civil unions law retroactively to add an immunity provision [§572B-9.5], which provided immunity for religious organizations that refused to make their facilities available for solemnizing civil unions. Granting leave to amend complaint would be futile because the action would remain nonjusticiable; plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they had standing or that the action was ripe. 903 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (2012).