Baehr v. Miike

Last updated

Baehr v. Miike
Court Supreme Court of Hawaii
Full case nameNinia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, Jeseph Mellilo, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
Lawrence H. Miike, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant
DecidedDecember 9, 1999
Citation(s)Supreme Court of Hawaii No. 20371
Case history
Prior action(s)Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993)
Baehr v. Miike, Circuit Court for the First Circuit, Hawaii No. 91-1394
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJames S. Burns, Walter M. Heen, Robert G. Klein, Steven H. Levinson, Ronald Moon (original Justices)
Case opinions
Passage of a state constitutional amendment empowering the state legislature to limit marriage to mixed-sex couples renders plaintiff-appellees' case moot. Circuit court reversed and remanded to enter judgment for defendant-appellant.
Keywords
Same-sex marriage, Equal protection
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender rights in Hawaii
Flag of Hawaii.svg
Baehr v. Lewin(1993)
Baehr v. Miike (1996, 1999)
Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)
House Bill 444 (2009)
Senate Bill 232 (2011)
Hawaii Marriage Equality Act (2013)
Equality Hawaii
LGBT rights in the United States
Same-sex marriage in Hawaii
Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii
LGBT history in Hawaii
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT Portal
This box:

Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin) was a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. Initiated in 1990, as the case moved through the state courts, the passage of an amendment to the state constitution in 1998 led to the dismissal of the case in 1999. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution would have provided that all states would be potentially required to recognize marriages obtained in Hawaii, prompting the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 under Bill Clinton. [1] Dozens of statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions at the state level also followed Baehr. [2]

Contents

Background

On December 17, 1990, three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii Department of Health with the encouragement of local gay rights activist William E. Woods. [3] The three couples met the requirements of the state law that detailed eligibility requirements for marriage, except for being of the same sex. State health director John C. Lewin requested an opinion from the Hawaii Attorney General's office, which concluded on December 27 that under the United States Constitution the right to marry is fundamental, but only for different-sex couples. On April 12, 1991, the Department of Health denied the license applications, citing the Attorney General's opinion. On May 1 the couples initiated their lawsuit, Baehr v. Lewin, seeking to have the same-sex exclusion declared unconstitutional. [4] They were represented by Dan Foley, an experienced local civil rights attorney. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund had declined to represent them as it debated the importance of marriage itself and whether taking the issue to court was a wise strategy. [5]

First decisions

On October 1, 1991, the trial court dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The Court considered whether the Hawaii constitution's right to privacy included a fundamental right to same-sex marriage and concluded that it did not. The Court did find however that under the state's equal protection clause, denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex that required justification by the state under the standard known as strict scrutiny. On May 5, 1993 (with clarification issued on May 27), the Supreme Court split in a 2-1-2 decision to remand the case to the trial court to determine if the state could meet that standard by demonstrating that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples "furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights." [6] Justice Levinson, joined by Chief Justice Moon, wrote the plurality opinion, [7] though Court of Appeals Judge (filling in for a recused Justice) James S. Burns wrote a concurrence of the judgment reaching the same conclusion as the plurality opinion, thus remanding the case back to the trial court.

Legislative response

In response to the court's ruling, Hawaii enacted a new statute that defined marriage to include only different-sex couples and created the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law to study the issue of granting benefits to same-sex couples. Following the failure of the first Commission, a second Commission was established. While the Commissions studied the issue the case was stayed. The Commission issued its report on December 8, 1995. In examining the many benefits associated with marriage along with public policy reasons for extending such benefits to same-sex couples, the Commission recommended that the legislature open marriage to same-sex couples and that it create as well a comprehensive domestic partnership act to be open to all couples without respect to sex. [8]

Following his appointment as State Director of Health, Lawrence H. Miike substituted for Lewin as defendant, changing the name of the case.

Trial

Beginning on September 10, 1996, Judge Kevin S.C. Chang conducted the trial in the case of Baehr v. Miike, with the name of the new State Director of Health, Lawrence H. Miike, replacing that of his predecessor. Hawaii put forth five state interests it claimed were sufficiently "compelling" to allow it to bar same-sex couples from marrying. These interests were:

  1. protecting the health and welfare of children and other persons
  2. fostering procreation within a marital setting
  3. securing or assuring recognition of Hawaii marriages in other jurisdictions
  4. protecting the State's public fisc from the reasonably foreseeable effects of State approval of same-sex marriage in the laws of Hawaii
  5. protecting civil liberties, including the reasonably foreseeable effects of State approval of same-sex marriages, on its citizens.

The state called four expert witnesses with specialties in psychology and sociology. The plaintiffs also called four expert witnesses with specialties in psychology, sociology and child development. On December 3, 1996, Judge Chang ruled that the state had not established any compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the ability to marry and that, even if it had, it failed to prove that the Hawaii statute was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights. He instructed the state to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. [9] The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal. [10]

Resolution

On November 3, 1998, Hawaii voters approved an amendment to the state constitution [11] that allowed the state "to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." [12] On December 9, 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled that the marriage amendment removed the plaintiffs' legal objections to the state's eligibility requirements for marriage and definition of marriage. The Court reversed Chang's ruling and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant. [13]

Impact

As Congress considered passing DOMA, the House Judiciary Committee's Report on the legislation in 1996 discussed the implications of the Baehr case at length and argued for passage because "a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits." It said the proposed statute: [14]

...is a response to a very particular development in the State of Hawaii.... [T]he state courts in Hawaii appear to be on the verge of requiring that State to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The prospect of permitting homosexual couples to "marry" in Hawaii threatens to have very real consequences both on federal law and on the laws (especially the marriage laws) of the various States.

In 1997, while the case was pending, and before the passage of the state constitutional amendment that reinforced the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the state responded to the recommendations of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law by offering reciprocal beneficiary registration to any adults who were prohibited by state law from marrying, including same-sex couples, blood relatives, and housemates. The benefits that status provided were less than those of civil marriage. [15]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Socarides, Richard (March 8, 2013). "Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act". The New Yorker . Retrieved February 5, 2015. As Republicans prepared for the 1996 Presidential election, they came up with what they thought was an extremely clever strategy. A gay-rights lawsuit in Hawaii was gaining press coverage…[they] believed...giving them a campaign issue: the defense of marriage.
  2. ↑ Statsky, William P. (2002). Family Law, 5th edition. Albany, NY: Delmar/West Legal Studies. p. 135. ISBN   0766833585.
  3. ↑ Issenberg, Sasha (May 31, 2021). "The Surprising Honolulu Origins of the National Fight Over Same-Sex Marriage". POLITICO . Retrieved June 4, 2021.
  4. ↑ William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment (NY: Free Press, 1996), ISBN   0-684-82404-3, 4
  5. ↑ Pinello, Daniel R. (2006). America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage . Cambridge University Press. pp.  25–7. ISBN   978-0521848565.
  6. ↑ Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993)
  7. ↑ Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 48 (Haw. 1993)
  8. ↑ Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law (December 8, 1995). State of Hawaii Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law. State of Hawaii. Retrieved August 18, 2010.
  9. ↑ Baehr v. Miike, Circuit Court for the First Circuit, Hawaii No. 91-1394
  10. ↑ Oshiro, Sandra (December 6, 1996). "Hawaiian judge puts same-sex marriage ruling on hold". The Nation. Thailand: Reuter. p. A12. Retrieved August 18, 2010.
  11. ↑ General Election 1998, Hawaii Office of Elections, November 3, 1998, retrieved July 6, 2010
  12. ↑ Hawai'i State Constitution Archived 2010-07-30 at the Wayback Machine , Article I, section 23, Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau.
  13. ↑ Baehr v. Miike,No. 20371(Supreme Court of Hawaii1999-12-09).
  14. ↑ United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 9, 1996). "Report 104-664: Defense of Marriage Act" (PDF). pp. 4–11. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
  15. ↑ Gallo, N.R. (2004). Introduction to Family Law. NY: Delmar Learning/West Legal Studies. p. 144. ISBN   1401814530.

Related Research Articles

Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999. It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples. The decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span>

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2004.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1996.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1993.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1999.

Steven H. Levinson is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii. Levinson served his first term from 1992 to 2002 and was retained by the Judicial Selection Commission to serve a second ten-year term. He retired from the court, effective December 31, 2008.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Hawaii Amendment 2</span>

Constitutional Amendment 2 of 1998 amended the Constitution of Hawaii, granting the state legislature the power to prevent same-sex marriage from being conducted or recognized in Hawaii. Amendment 2 was the first constitutional amendment adopted in the United States that specifically targeted same-sex partnerships.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, is a 2008 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court holding that allowing same-sex couples to form same-sex unions but not marriages violates the Connecticut Constitution. It was the third time that a ruling by the highest court of a U.S. state legalized same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) and California in In re Marriage Cases (2008). The decision legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut when it came into effect on November 12, 2008. There were no attempts made to amend the state constitution to overrule the decision, and gender-neutral marriage statutes were passed into law in 2009.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Alaska since October 12, 2014, with an interruption from October 15 to 17 while state officials sought without success to delay the implementation of a federal court ruling. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska held on October 12 in the case of Hamby v. Parnell that Alaska's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On October 15, state officials obtained a two-day stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend on October 17. Although Alaska is one of a few states which enforces a three-day waiting period between requesting a marriage license and conducting a marriage ceremony, at least one same-sex couple had the waiting period waived immediately after the district court's ruling. They married in Utqiagvik on October 13 and were the first same-sex couple to marry in Alaska.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hawaii</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Hawaii enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1973; Hawaii being one of the first six states to legalize it. In 1993, a ruling by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court made Hawaii the first state to consider legalizing same-sex marriage. Following the approval of the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act in November 2013, same-sex couples have been allowed to marry on the islands. Additionally, Hawaii law prohibits discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, and the use of conversion therapy on minors has been banned since July 2018. Gay and lesbian couples enjoy the same rights, benefits and treatment as opposite-sex couples, including the right to marry and adopt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT history in Hawaii</span> Aspect of history

In Hawaii, the LGBT laws have been evolving for the past hundred years. In the pre-19th century, the influence of Polynesian culture led to a more open-minded state. After the first Christian missionaries began arriving in Hawaii, strict sodomy laws were enacted. Territory v. Bell (1958) was the last sodomy case argued in Hawaii. After the turn of the 20th century, LGBT issues began being taken to and decided by the Supreme Court. In 2013, Hawaii voted in favor of gay marriage, and marriage licenses began to be issued to LGBT couples.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Idaho since October 15, 2014. In May 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in the case of Latta v. Otter found Idaho's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but enforcement of that ruling was stayed pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling on October 7, 2014, though the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the ruling, which was not lifted until October 15, 2014.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Kentucky since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, was handed down on June 26, 2015, and Governor Steve Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway announced almost immediately that the court's order would be implemented.

In the United States, the history of same-sex marriage dates from the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.