Perhaps my perception of the concept of "equality" is too mathematical, because I can’t seem to grasp the reasoning behind the introduction of a bill permitting civil unions in Hawaiʻi.

From the aforementioned linked article:

"I personally support the concept of allowing civil unions," [Gary Hooser (D-Kaua´i-Ni´ihau)] said. "I think it is past time to have the conversation and move the issue forward. We should treat people equally." [article cut] “This is not a marriage,” Hooser said.

It gets better.

Rep. Blake Oshiro (D, Aiea-Halawa) who is supporting the bill in the House, said "all people should be treated with tolerance" and explained that the bills are being written "to avoid the connotation that this is marriage."

So. Their aim is to treat gay people equally by … permitting something that isn’t marriage. I guess I am being too clinical since Wikipedia says of mathematical equality:

Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely the same in every way.

Hooser and Oshiro already say civil union is not marriage, so then, are their bills really treating gays equally? Seems pretty inaccurate to me. I think what they really want to do is treat gays congruously or synonymously.

But equally? They shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back for something they’re not really doing.

Then again, I was always lousy with logic. Perhaps this is one of those tricky cases where A equals B, but B does not necessarily equal A.

Wish there was a sound bite-specific way to describe that.