Disbelief may be the defining characteristic of the American cultural identity. It is a nagging and deeply ingrained part of how we reflect on our own history. How could it be, we ask ourselves, when confronted with images of Japanese internment camps, the paranoia that fueled McCarthyism or the devastation of Vietnam? But the portions of American history that are most incomprehensible were not thrust upon the people by government but were instead the facets of daily life that populations lived with—and largely accepted—for long periods of time.

We don’t want to believe that America was once a nation of slave owners—or that, less than a century ago, women were jailed for wanting to vote. Mere decades ago, we lived in a reality that prohibited black Americans from sharing lunch counters with their white neighbors. We distance ourselves from the populations that allowed such discrimination and chastise them for their apathy. What may be hardest to believe is that this attitude toward our own history may represent the height of hypocrisy. Too many still do too little as prejudice thrives and equality remains out of reach for millions of American citizens.

One of them is Christie Welch, an upbeat woman with a sunny smile, who works in Rep. Karl Rhoads’ office at the State capitol. Welch married her partner of 10 years in Massachusetts five years ago, but here in Hawai’i, the lifelong commitment they made to each other is not recognized in any legal or official way. When Welch walks down the halls at work, she passes people who are actively working to nullify her marriage, including Rep. Gene Ward, who, because Welch lives in his district, is the official elected to speak on her behalf.

“He is such a vocal opponent of the bill,” Welch said. “It’s very, very difficult for me, at times, not to want to approach him in just a kind of a ‘who do you think you are?’ way. We have just as much right to marry as anyone else does. It’s a matter of legitimacy and validating who we are as people.”

On a local level, the gay rights debate has intensified in recent weeks. State lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize civil unions in Hawaii, which would provide same-sex couples with the same legal rights as straight married couples. House members voted 33-17 in favor of the bill, which now goes to the Senate for further debate.

“Marriage as we know it is a foundation of our community,” said Sen. Norman Sakamoto. “Civil unions would be an erosion of that foundation. You can try to say civil unions are not marriage. But you can also take the label off of a Ford and call it a Chrysler. But what is it? Is it a Ford or a Chrysler?”

So, says Sakamoto, labels don’t matter and marriage is important—essential even—to the strength of our community. When asked to clarify what would be so harmful about allowing more marriages in a society that apparently so desperately needs them, he explained that it’s not actually about the marriage part at all.

“They want us to approve not just the label but they want us to approve some of the conduct,” he said. “Like relations between same-sex people.”

Sakamoto won’t speak to whether he believes that prohibiting same-sex unions will effectively prevent same-sex sex but he, like many of the bill’s opponents, suggests that the issue has already been settled. He refers to voters’ 1998 approval of a state constitutional amendment that gives the Legislature the authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“This is 2009, not 1998,” said Alan R. Spector, co-chair of the Family Equality Coalition of Hawaii. “Hawaii was the first state to tackle this issue and so much has changed since then. When this discussion occurred in the ’90s, it was a novel concept. I find it hard to believe that treating people with equality is a novel concept, but if you look at where we are as a country today, it is a very different environment. It’s really radically different.”

Since Vermont became the first state to allow civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000, civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships have been legalized in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Oregon and Washington, D.C. Marriage for same-sex couples is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut, while limited domestic partnerships are legal in Washington and Maine. New York recognizes same-sex unions from other jurisdictions.

“Hawaii is different,” said Dennis Arakaki, the interim Executive Director for the Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Catholic Conference. “People here basically retain the same traditional values. Things don’t change in 11 years. Although it’s called by a different name, civil unions provide the same benefits and rights as same-sex marriage, so we’re opposed to it on those grounds.”

Arakaki implies that it’s not discriminatory to view equality on a gradient, so that some people deserve it more than others.

“We don’t condemn people for their lifestyle,” he said. “But this is not on the same level as the rights of a black person or a disabled person. I don’t think it rises to that level.”

For now, the direction of equality in Hawaii lies in the hands of the state’s six-member Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hear arguments and determine whether to put the bill to a Senate vote. Committee Chair Sen. Brian Taniguchi said that while he supports civil unions, he isn’t going to try to convince any of his colleagues to follow his lead.

“This one is more of a personal vote,” said Taniguchi. “There’s a lot of emotional passion so I’m not going to put pressure on anyone to vote any particular way.”

As for issues, emotionally intense or not, about which he would feel strongly enough to try to convince other senators to take his position—Taniguchi said there are plenty of them, he just can’t offer any examples. It’s a stance that might infuriate those desperate for the bill’s passage, those who might plead, if you support a movement, support it. If you’re for something, be for it. But it is not just Taniguchi who stands to face such criticism. Consider that, those who are most vocal in this debate by overwhelming numbers, are speaking out against civil unions.

“More than any other issue in the state, except maybe the question of banning pitbulls, we have gotten the most e-mails and phone calls about civil unions,” said Taniguchi. “We are hearing from many, many more people who oppose them.”

Disbelief about events and realities from America’s past—those that happened before our time or outside of the realm of our control—is sometimes the only way we know how to cope with human nature’s darkest and most grotesque manifestations: hate, fear and discrimination. But to claim disbelief over circumstances that we can lobby to change is nothing more than deep denial.