LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

BAEHR v MIIKE Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: BVM61667, CourtCode: SM, CourtName: WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE CIRCUIT, Plaintiff: BAEHR, State: IN Indiana, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>BVM61667, Marriage, Hawaii, Haw, Constitution, Sex, Discrimination, Supreme Court, Society, Constitutional Amendment, Same-sex Marriage, Same-sex, Basis, Marriage Amendment, Legislature, Statute, Hawaii Constitution, Couples, Equal Protection, Hrs, Cite, Same-sex Couples, Gender, Parents, Classification, Circuit Court, Amendment, Marriage License, Appeals, Plurality Opinion, Baehr, Rights, Findings, Government, Lewin, Same-sex Marriages, Judgement, Lower Court, Orientation, Homosexuality, Marriages , ContentID: 120243648

Case Documents
1   SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSHAWAIISFUTURETODAY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109882
8 pages
PDF
2   SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSHAWAIIREPS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109881
6 pages
PDF
3   SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSHAWAIICATHOLICCONFERENCE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109880
10 pages
PDF
4   SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSACLU HAWAII
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109879
11 pages
PDF
5   PLAINTIFFSAPPELLEESANSWERBRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109878
44 pages
PDF
6   PLAINTIFFAPPELLEESSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109877
25 pages
PDF
7   HAWAIICONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109874
5 pages
PDF
8   HAWAII MARRIAGELAW
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109873
2 pages
PDF
9   DEFENDENTAPPELLANTSREPLYBRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109871
21 pages
PDF
10   DEFENDANTAPPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEFREPLY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109870
14 pages
PDF
11   DEFENDANTAPPELLANTSBRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109869
50 pages
PDF
12   CALIFORNIAWITHDRAWALFROMAMICUS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109868
2 pages
PDF
13   AMICUSSTATES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109866
17 pages
PDF
14   AMICUSRUTHERFORDINSTITUTE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109864
21 pages
PDF
15   AMICUSNATLASSOCRESEARCHTHERAPYOFHOMOSEXUALITY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109862
14 pages
PDF
16   AMICUSNAMAMOO HAWAII
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109861
12 pages
PDF
17   AMICUSMORMONS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109860
17 pages
PDF
18   AMICUSMADISONSOCIETY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109859
13 pages
PDF
19   AMICUSJAPANESEAMERICANCITIZENSLEAGUE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109858
18 pages
PDF
20   AMICUSINDEPENDENTWOMENSFORUM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109857
12 pages
PDF
21   AMICUSHAWAIISFUTURETODAY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109856
24 pages
PDF
22   AMICUSHAWAIIREPS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109855
20 pages
PDF
23   AMICUSHAWAIICATHOLICCONFERENCE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109854
15 pages
PDF
24   AMICUSCORALRIDGEMINISTERIES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109853
11 pages
PDF
25   AMICUSAMERICANFRIENDSSERVICECOMM
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109851
15 pages
PDF
26   AMICUSAGUDATHISRAEL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109850
9 pages
PDF
27   AMICUSACLU HAWAII
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109849
12 pages
PDF
28 1997-05-26 AMICUSCHRISTIANLEGALSOCIETY
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109852
13 pages
PDF
29 1997-04-29 SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSSTATES
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109883
5 pages
PDF
30 1996-12-11 HAWAIISUPREMECOURTDISPOSITION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109875
3 pages
PDF
31 1996-12-11 APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109867
17 pages
PDF
32 1996-12-11 AMICUSSOCIOLOGISTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109865
16 pages
PDF
33 1996-12-11 AMICUSPSYCHOLOGISTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109863
16 pages
PDF
34 1996-12-03 HAWAII FIRSTCIRCUITOPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109872
28 pages
PDF
35 1993-05-27 ORIGINALCASEOPINION1993
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 109876
41 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 35 documents , 567 pages
Price: $ 189.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSHAWAIISFUTURETODAY

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HAWAII
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
CONSTITUTION
LEGISLATURE
AMENDMENT
GOVERNMENT
HAW
HONOLULU
LAWS
AUTHORITY
LEWIN
STAR-BULLETIN
COURT
OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
POWER
DEBATE
BAEHR
CONVENTION
HONOLULU ADVERTISER
OPINION
PLURALITY
REJECTION
REPRESENTATIVES
RESERVE MARRIAGE
POLITICIANS
GAY MARRIAGE
FORUM
WAIHEE
RESPONSIBILITY
                                            No. 20371

                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII



                  NINIA BAEHR, GENORA
                  DANCEL, TAMMY                           LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in
                  RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                   his official capacity as
                  PREGIL, PAT LAGON,                   vs. Director of the Department
                  JOSEPH MELILLO,                         of Health, State of Hawaii,
                             Plaintiffs-Appellees,               Defendant-Appellant.

                                       Civ. No. 91-1394-05
                                           (Injunctions)

                              APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS OF
                             FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                                    FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                            THE HONORABLE KEVIN S.C. CHANG

        HAWAII'S FUTURE TODAY'S AMICUS CURIAE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

KOSHIBA AGENA & KUBOTA
JAMES E.T. KOSHIBA 768-0
2600 Pauahi Tower
1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone No.: 523-3900

Attorney for
HAWAII'S FUTURE TODAY

                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

ARGUMENT

A. The Will of the People Ultimately Governs

B. The Marriage Amendment Is the People's Final and Absolute Rejection of Judicially-Created
Same-Sex Marriage

SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • The Marriage Amendment Is the People's Final and Absolute Rejection of Judicially-Created
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw.
  • City & County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67 Haw.
  • Hawaii Session Laws, Act 217, §§ 1 and 8
  • Gay Marriage: Moving Beyond Tolerance,
  • Hilo forum on same-sex marriages draws heated debate, Honolulu Advertiser at A3
  • Kauai looks at euthanasia, gay marriage Honolulu Star-Bulletin at A4
  • Mighty Public Opinion, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, at A 16
  • Waihee Opposes Same-Sex Marriage,
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
  • In Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw.
  • The People's elected representatives in the legislature responded with a law reaffirming the
  • the legislature presented for the approval of the People a constitutional amendment expressly
  • The debate over same-sex marriage was then joined in earnest.
  • The meaning of the Hawaii Constitution is now clear: there shall be no same-sex marriage
  • No branch of Hawaii's government - legislative, executive, or judicial - has any inherent
  • The power of the legislature to pass laws, of the governor to carry them out, and of the
  • This provision emphasizes that even the "exercise" of governmental power - be it legislative,
  • 440, 950 P.2d 178, 186 (quoting Convention Center Authority v. Anzai, 78 Haw.
  • On May 5, 1993, a plurality of this Court decided that limiting marriage to opposite-sex
  • Politicians high and low, including gubernatorial candidates, declared themselves for or

  • 2 . SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSHAWAIIREPS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    AMENDMENT
    CONSTITUTION
    LEGISLATURE
    POWER
    LAW
    HAW
    SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
    COURT
    REVISED STATUTE
    HAWAII
    CLARIFY
    PASSAGE
    PLAINTIFFS
    COUPLES
    HONOLULU
    CONSISTENT
    MOOT
    FRAMERS
    BASIS
    OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
    LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SURROUNDING
    INTENT
    PURPOSE
    EMPHASIS
    SUPREME COURT
    AMICI CURIAE
    VALID LAW
    DISMISS
    AMENDMENT LOGICALLY NEGATES
    
                                                          NO. 20371
    
                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    
    
                                                                                Civil No. 91-1394-05
    
               NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                                )     BRIEF OF AMICI
               TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                                )     CURIAE
               PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                                  )     REPRESENTATIVE
               MELILLO,                                                   )     MICHAEL KAHIKINA,
                                                                          )     REPRESENTATIVE
                               Plaintiffs-Appellees,                      )     EZRA
                                                                          )     KANOHO,
                       vs.                                                )    REPRESENTATIVE
                                                                          )     COLLEEN MEYER,
               LAWRENCE MIIKE, in his capacity as Director of  )                REPRESENTATIVE
               the Department of Health, State of Hawai'i,                )     DAVID
                                                                          )     STEGMAIER, AND
                               Defendant-Appellant.                       )     REPRESENTATIVE
               ________________________                                   )     ROMY
                                                                                M. CACHOLA;
                                                                                CERTIFICATE OF
                                                                                SERVICE
    
                   BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
    
    
    
               ROBERT K.                       JAY ALAN SEKULOW*
               MATSUMOTO #1330   The American Center for Law & Justice 1000 Regent
               1441 Kapiolani                  University Drive Virginia Beach, VA 23464 (757) 579-2489
               Boulevard
               Suite 910                       *Admitted pro hac vice
               Honolulu, Hawai'i 96814
               (808) 942-2281
    
               MARIE A. SHELDON
               #5964
               1000 Pacific Tower
               1001 Bishop St.
               Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
               (808) 540-4207
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
  • Honolulu, Hawai'i 96814
  • HRS SECTION 572-1 IS A VALID LAW BECAUSE IT WAS IN FORCE AT THE
  • TIME OF THE AMENDMENT, AND IT IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE
  • City and County of Honolulu v. Ariyoshi, 67 Haw.
  • WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE
  • SECTION 23 OF THE HAWAII CONSTITUTION
  • LEGISLATURE'S POWER TO LIMIT MARRIAGE TO ONE
  • THIS CASE IS MOOT BECAUSE THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT REMOVES THE BASIS FOR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM BY
  • this Court has been asked by plaintiffs to hold that Hawaii Revised Statute Section 572-1
  • the people of Hawai'i have made clear that the Hawai'i legislature does not have the power to
  • The Marriage Amendment logically negates any claim that the Hawai'i Constitution recognizes
  • Amendment's Passage Demonstrate that Hawai'i's Marriage Law which Does not
  • legislative history surrounding the Marriage Amendment's passage both show that Section 572-1
  • Section 9 of the Hawai'i Constitution Requires that Hawai'i Revised Statute Section 572-1
  • Therefore, Hawai'i Revised Statute Section 572-1 still is, and always has been, a valid law
  • This Court repeatedly has held that "the fundamental principle in construing a constitutional
  • The framers of the Marriage Amendment, the Hawai'i Legislature, enacted this amendment not to
  • Chumbley) (emphasis added).
  • The intent merely to clarify and confirm existing Legislative power was not merely the
  • The purpose of the bill is to provide the people of Hawai'i with The opportunity to amend the

  • 3 . SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSHAWAIICATHOLICCONFERENCE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CONSTITUTION
    LEWIN
    MARRIAGE LICENSES
    HAW
    COURT
    LAW
    HAWAII CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
    BAEHR
    SEX
    CLASSIFICATION
    STRICT SCRUTINY
    AMICUS CURIAE
    RIGHTS
    LEGISLATURE
    PLURALITY
    MARRIAGE-RELATED BENEFITS
    CONST
    MARRIAGE AMENDMENT OVERTURNS
    OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES
    HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
    SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
    CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
    SUPREME COURT
    MARRIAGE AMENDMENT REAFFIRMS
    MARITAL BENEFITS
    PLAINTIFFS
    EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
    ROBERT BRUCE GRAHAM
    INTEGRATED BODY
    
                                                  No. 20371
    
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
    
    
    
                    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA
                    DANCEL, TAMMY                             LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in
                    RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                     his official capacity as
                    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH  Director of the Department of
                    MELILLO,                                  Health, State of Hawaii,
                                     Plaintiffs-Appellees,             Defendant-Appellant.
    
                                     Civil No. 91-1394-05 (Injunctions)
    
                                    APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS OF
                                    FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                                          FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                                      THE HON. KEVIN S.C. CHANG
    
                            SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
                                    HAWAII CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
                                                    AND
                                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    ASHFORD & WRISTON
    ROBERT BRUCE GRAHAM, JR. 1305-0
    Alii Place, Suite 1400
    1099 Alakea Street
    Honolulu, F11 96813
    Telephone: (808) 539-0400
    
    Attorney for Amicus Curiae
    HAWAII CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
    
    
    
    
                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS
           Table of Authorities                                                                ii
           I.  STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED                                             1
           II. ARGUMENT                                                                        2
    
           II  THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT OVERTURNS THE HOLDING OF THE
           A.  PLURALITY IN LEWIN THAT THE MARRIAGE LAW, H.R.S. § 572-1, IS A  2
               "SEX BASED CLASSIFICATION" SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY
           II  THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT TREATS BOTH MARRIAGE LICENSES
           B.  AND MARRIAGE-RELATED BENEFITS AS AN INTEGRATED BODY OF  3
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
  • SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
  • ASHFORD & WRISTON ROBERT BRUCE GRAHAM,
  • HAWAII CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
  • II THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT OVERTURNS THE HOLDING OF THE A. PLURALITY IN LEWIN THAT THE
  • LAW THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT REAFFIRMS THAT A LAW WHICH II REQUIRES BOTH A MAN AND A WOMAN FOR
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw.
  • Const.
  • Applying the standard of strict scrutiny enunciated in that case, Lewin at 580, 852 P.2d at
  • In response to these developments, on April 29, 1997, the Hawai'i State Legislature passed
  • THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT OVERTURNS THE HOLDING OF THE
  • PLURALITY IN BAEHR v. LEWIN THAT THE MARRIAGE LAW, HRS § 572-1, IS A
  • "SEX-BASED CLASSIFICATION" SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY.
  • The purpose of the bill is to provide the people of Hawaii with the opportunity to amend the
  • The text of the conference committee report demonstrates that the Marriage Amendment was
  • THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT TREATS BOTH MARRIAGE LICENSES AND MARRIAGE-RELATED BENEFITS AS AN
  • The term "marriage" should be interpreted to include both marriage licenses and those rights,
  • It is now argued by some that Plaintiffs suit is for marriage licenses, and that the passage
  • Senate Judiciary Committee, "For Immediate Release," April 8, 1997.
  • First for the reasons just discussed, under the Marriage Amendment unmarried persons have no
  • Something like this may be the effect of Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University,
  • THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT REAFFIRMS THAT A LAW WHICH REQUIRES BOTH A MAN AND A WOMAN FOR A
  • First, the Marriage Amendment did not directly revise the Equal Protection clause, as

  • 4 . SUPPLEMENTALAMICUSACLU HAWAII

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    AMENDMENT
    COURT
    CONSTRUCTION
    MARRIAGE
    PRESERVATION PRINCIPLE
    POWER
    COUPLES
    PROVISION
    LEGISLATURE
    OREGON
    RESERVE
    GOVERNMENT
    HAWAI
    SUPREME COURT
    OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
    NARROW INTERPRETATION
    LAWS
    AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
    CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
    CANON
    DEROGATION
    BAEHR
    AMICUS CURIAE
    RIGHTS
    EMBRACING
    MARRIAGE CONTRACT
    DISCRIMINATION
    OPINION
    EXCLUDES
    
                                      NO. 20371
                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
               NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,
               TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE
               PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                 CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
               MELILLO,                                 (INJUNCTIONS)
    
                               P1aintiffs-Appellees, APPEAL FROM THE
                      vs.                               FINDINGS OF FACT AND
                                                        CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
               Lawrence H. Miike, in his
               official capacity as Director            FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
               of the Department of Health,
               State of Hawaii,                         THE HONORABLE KEVIN
                                                        S.C. CHANG
    
                                Defendant-Appellant.
    
                BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
                                  UNION OF HAWAI'I FOUNDATION
    
                                              and
    
                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    SANDY S. MA #7133
    AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION               EDWARD C. KEMPER #893
    OF HAWAI I FOUNDATION                        KEMPER & WATTS
    Post Office Box 3140                         Grosvenor Center, Mauka Tower
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96801                       737 Bishop Street, Suite 1455
                                                 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
    
    MATTHEW ~ COLES (NY Bar No.                  LESLIE G. FAGEN (NY Bar
    076090)*                                     No.385862)
    JENNIFER MIDDLETON (CA Bar                   TOBIAS BARRINGTON WOLFF (NY Bar
    No.178546)                                   admission pending)
    AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION               Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
    FOUNDATION                                   Garrison
    125 Broad Street, 18th Floor                 1285 Avenue of the Americas
    New York, New York 10004-2400                New York, NY 10019-6064
    
    *Matthew A. Coles was admitted pro hac vice before The Honorable
    Judge Chang in Baehr et al. v. Miike, Civ. No.91-1394-O5.
            (Attorneys for Amicus Curiae AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL, TAMMY RODRIGUES,
  • BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
  • THE PRESERVATION PRINCIPLE PROVIDES A CANON OF CONSTRUCTION
  • AMENDMENT IV.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union,
  • Curiae, respectfully submits this response to the Court's November 23, 1998 order authorizing
  • The ACLU believes that the effect to be given to the marriage amendment should be controlled
  • When a Constitution is amended to confer a new power upon government, and that power stands
  • The United States Supreme Court did the same when it gave a narrow interpretation to the
  • This principle militates in favor of a narrow interpretation of the Hawai i marriage
  • to opposite-sex couples but otherwise would not derogate from the continuing role of article
  • The most recent decision to address the issue comes from the Supreme Court of Oregon.
  • that Court was asked to determine the extent to which a campaign finance amendment had carved
  • The Court grounded its analysis firmly in the preservation principle, embracing a narrow
  • In a landmark 1935 opinion, that Court held that a provision in its Constitution that
  • As a reasonable corollary of, we think it should follow that any provision which excludes any
  • derogation of a general prohibition against such laws already contained in the State
  • That power should not be construed to interfere with the continuing role of article I,

  • 5 . PLAINTIFFSAPPELLEESANSWERBRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LAW
    SEX
    DISCRIMINATION
    HAWAII
    LOWER COURT
    FINDINGS
    MARRIAGE
    SEX-BASED CLASSIFICATION
    SAME-SEX COUPLES
    APPEALS
    RECONSIDERATION
    STATUTE
    SUPREME COURT
    BASIS
    VII
    CONSTITUTION
    PLAINTIFFS
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
    APPELLATE PROCEDURE
    DIFFERENT-SEX COUPLES
    EQUAL PROTECTION
    UNITED STATES
    AVOID UNNECESSARY ABRIDGMENTS
    MARRIAGE LICENSES
    ADVERSE IMPACT
    NARROWLY DRAWN
    PUBLIC FISC
    CERTIFICATE
    
                                           NO. 20371
                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                   ) CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                   )
    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                     ) APPEAL FROM THE FINAL
    MELILLO,                                      ) JUDGMENT FILED ON
                                                  ) DECEMBER 11, 1996
                  Plaintiffs-Appellees,           )) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
           vs.                                    )) HONORABLE PATRICK YIM
    LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his                     ) HONORABLE ROBERT KLEIN
    official capacity as Director                 ) HONORABLE HERBERT SHIMABUKURO
    of the Department of Health                   ) HONORABLE KEVIN CHANG
    State of Hawaii                               ) Judges
                                                  )
                  Defendant-Appellant.            )
    ____________________________________)
    
    
                          PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' ANSWERING BRIEF
    
                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    PARTINGTON & FOLEY                                  EVAN WOLFSON
    DANIEL R. FOLEY 3556                                Lambda Legal Defense and
    Suite 2450 Pacific Tower                               Education Fund, Inc.
    1001 Bishop Street                                  120 Wall Street, Suite 1500
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96813                              New York, New York 10005
    Telephone: (808) 526-9500                           Telephone: (212) 809-8585
    
    KIRK H. CASHMERE 3928
    201 Merchant Street
    2300 City Financial Tower                           Attorneys for
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96813                              Plaintiffs-Appellees
    Telephone: (808) 523-7600
    
    
    
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                                     Page
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................i-iv
    
    I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE..........................................1
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
  • THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTOR'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
  • FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
  • OF THE HAWAII CONSTITUTION
  • The statutory restriction on marriage discriminates on the basis of
  • E. THE DIRECTOR DID NOT MEET HIS HEAVY BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE SEX-BASED
  • Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification, filed May 27, 1993
  • Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145........27
  • Andrew Koppelman, Why Discrimination Against Lesbian and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination, 69
  • The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male
  • ------IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • On remand, in accordance with the "strict scrutiny" standard, the burden will rest on to
  • The Director argued that the original plurality decision of this court was wrong in
  • Because, for the reasons stated in the plurality opinion filed in the above-captioned matter
  • V R 2-4; VII R
  • Dr. Pruett stated that gay parents' sexual orientation does not disqualify them from being
  • In general, gay and lesbian parents are as fit and loving parents as non-gay persons and
  • In addition, the lower court found the Director failed to prove that allowing same-sex
  • Whether this court should affirm the lower court because of the Director's failure to comply
  • Whether this court should affirm the lower court because of the Director's failure to contest
  • Whether this court was correct in its 1993 holding that the statute discriminates on the
  • the only other court that has considered a constitutional provision similar to Hawaii was the
  • proceedings of the Constitution Convention of Hawaii of 1978 at 675 (discrimination based on

  • 6 . PLAINTIFFAPPELLEESSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MARRIAGE
    LEGISLATURE
    HAWAII
    LAW
    COURT
    COMMITTEE
    VOTERS
    STATUTE
    ATTORNEY
    RIGHTS
    SAME-SEX COUPLES
    RETROACTIVITY
    HAW
    OVERTURN
    LANGUAGE
    SUPREME COURT
    PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
    CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
    LIMITING MARRIAGE
    MARRIAGE LICENSES
    OBVIOUSLY INTEND
    OPPOSITE SEX
    PROPOSED AMENDMENT
    SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
    EXPLANATION
    LEGISLATION
    RATIFICATION
    GOVERN MARRIAGES
    COMMITTEE REPORT
    
                                                  NO. 20371
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
                                                                    CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
               NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,
               TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                          APPEAL FROM THE FINAL
               PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH MELILLO,    JUDGMENT FILED ON
                                             Plaintiffs-Appellees,  DECEMBER 11, 1996
                   vs.                                              FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
               BRUCE S. ANDERSON, in his official
               capacity as Director of the Department of            HONORABLE PATRICK YIM
               Health State of Hawaii,                              HONORABLE ROBERT KLEIN
                                                                    HONORABLE HERBERT
                                             Defendant-Appellant. SHIMABUKURO
                                                                    HONORABLE KEVIN CHANG
                                                                    Judges
    
                                 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
    
                                     DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. FOLEY
    
                                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    
                       PARTINGTON & FOLEY
                       DANIEL R. FOLEY 3556  EVAN WOLFSON
                       Suite 1330 Pacific Tower  Lambda Legal Defense and Education
                       1001 Bishop Street           Fund, Inc.
                       Honolulu, Hawaii 96813   120 Wall Street, Suite 1500
                                                    New York, New York 10005
                       Telephone: (808) 526-        Telephone: (212) 809-8585
                       9500
    
                       KIRK H. CASHMERE
                       3928
                       201 Merchant Street
                       2300 City Financial Tower  Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
                       Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
                       Telephone: (808) 523-
                       7600
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • 2300 City Financial Tower Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees
  • THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE AND THUS
  • THE VOTERS INTENDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
  • THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT EXPRESSLY OR OBVIOUSLY INTEND
  • THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DOES NOT OVERTURN THIS
  • H.R.S. § 572-1 CONTINUES TO GOVERN MARRIAGES 26 VII.
  • Supply, Inc. 63 Haw.
  • On November 23, 1998, this Court requested the parties in this case to file supplemental
  • PROPOSAL AND RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENT.
  • The Office of Elections published the proposed amendment in the newspaper as required by
  • The language of the proposed constitutional amendment and its explanation were also mailed to
  • The Legislature could then pass a law that would limit marriage to a man and a woman,
  • When construing a statute, the starting point is the language of the statute itself.
  • It means the legislature was given "power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" on
  • The Attorney General's brief notwithstanding, ascertaining the legislature's intent as to
  • This principle "is particularly applicable" when the challenged law or laws affect
  • H.B. No. 117, S.D. 1, C.D. 1, omitted language of Section 1 of the previous draft, H.B. No.
  • The legislature further finds that Hawaii's existing marriage laws were intended to
  • The deletion of this language contained in the Senate draft removed any possible
  • Acquiring a new power to restrict marriage in the future with legislation as yet unpassed
  • The Senate's Committee on Judiciary explained the amendments to H.B. 117 as follows:
  • The conference committee draft of H.B. 117 that was passed by the legislature deleted the
  • This intent was expressed by the co-chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and members of
  • This is found in the Senate's deletion of House language in H.B. 117 that would have allowed

  • 7 . HAWAIICONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LEGISLATURE
    HAWAII
    CONSTITUTION
    OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
    BILL
    AMENDMENT
    RESERVE
    PURPOSE
    POWER
    COMMITTEE
    PROPOSING
    RELATING
    HOUSE
    REPRESENTATIVES
    ACT
    RECOMMEND
    PETITIONS
    REPORT
    ASCII
    REGULAR SESSION
    SENATE
    CONFERENCE
    SEX
    INTENTIONS
    MATRIMONY
    PROTECTED RELATIONSHIP
    UNEQUALED IMPORTANCE
    NATION
    SOCIETY
    
     [Editor's Note: First the committee report; and then the text of the bill.
    Any extraneous ASCII characters are the result of underlining in the original
    which did not translate well to ASCII]
    
    
                                      CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT NO.     1
    
                                      Honolulu, Hawaii, 1997
                                      RE:       H.B. No. 117
                                                S.D. 1
                                                C.D. 1
    
    
    
    Honorable Joseph M. Souki
    Speaker, House of Representatives
    Nineteenth State Legislature
    Regular Session of 1997
    State of Hawaii
    
    Honorable Norman Mizuguchi
    President of the Senate
    Nineteenth State Legislature
    Regular Session of 1997
    State of Hawaii
    
    Sir:
    
             Your Committee on Conference on the disagreeing vote of the
    House of Representatives to the amendments proposed by the Senate
    in H.B. No. 117, S.D. 1, entitled:
    
            "A BILL FOR AN ACT PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
            RELATING TO MARRIAGE,"
    
    having met, and after full and free discussion, has agreed to
    recommend and does recommend to the respective Houses the final
    passage of this bill in an amended form.
    
             The purpose of the bill is to provide the people of Hawaii
    with the opportunity to amend the Hawaii State Constitution to
    expressly state that the Legislature has the power to
    constitutionally reserve marriage to couples of the opposite sex,
    thereby addressing the ruling in   [4mBaehr v. Lewin  [0m on that issue.
    
             Your Committee has amended both the purpose clause of the
    bill and the language of the proposed amendment to more clearly
    fulfill these purposes and intentions.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • First the committee report; and then the text of the bill.
  • Any extraneous ASCII characters are the result of underlining in the original which did not
  • House of Representatives Nineteenth State Legislature Regular Session of 1997 State of Hawaii
  • Honorable Norman Mizuguchi President of the Senate Nineteenth State Legislature Regular
  • Your Committee on Conference on the disagreeing vote of the House of Representatives to the
  • "A BILL FOR AN ACT PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO MARRIAGE,"
  • having met, and after full and free discussion, has agreed to recommend and does recommend to
  • The purpose of the bill is to provide the people of Hawaii with the opportunity to amend the
  • Your Committee has amended both the purpose clause of the bill and the language of the
  • REPORT TITLE:Same-Sex Marriage
  • Empowers the legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
  • marriage involving the legal relationship of matrimony between a
  • unequaled importance to the State, the nation, and society.
  • 15 legislature will remain open to the petitions of those who seek a

  • 8 . HAWAII MARRIAGELAW

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MARRIAGE CONTRACT
    PARTIES
    AGE
    LAWFUL
    LICENSE
    MARRIAGE CEREMONY
    REQUISITES
    LIVING
    PARTY
    NIECE
    AUNT
    NEPHEW
    FAMILY COURT
    CIRCUIT
    MINOR RESIDES
    MARRY
    LAWFUL WIFE LIVING
    HUSBAND LIVING
    CONSENT
    DURESS
    FRAUD
    UNKNOWN
    PURPOSE
    AGENT
    GRANT MARRIAGE LICENSES
    SOCIETY
    SOLEMNIZE
    PERFORMING
    HRS
    
                                 PART I. REQUISITES, PROCEDURES
    
    §572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract. In order to make valid the
    marriage contract, which shall be only between a man and a woman, it shall be
    necessary that:
    
                       (1) The respective parties do not stand in relation to each
                       other of ancestor and descendant of any degree whatsoever,
                       brother and sister of the half as well as to the whole
                       blood, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, whether the
                       relationship is the result of the issue of parents married
                       or not married to each other;
    
                       (2) Each of the parties at the time of contracting the
                       marriage is at least sixteen years of age; provided that
                       with the written approval of the family court of the circuit
                       within which the minor resides, it shall be lawful for a
                       person under the age of sixteen years, but in no event under
                       the age of fifteen years, to marry, subject to section 572-
                       2;
    
                       (3) The man does not at the time have any lawful wife living
                       and that the woman does not at the time have any lawful
                       husband living;
    
                       (4) Consent of neither party to the marriage has been
                       obtained by force, duress, or fraud;
    
                       (5) Neither of the parties is a person afflicted with any
                       loathsome disease concealed from, and unknown to, the other
                       party;
    
                       (6) The man and woman to be married in the State shall have
                       duly obtained a license for that purpose from the agent
                       appointed to grant marriage licenses; and
    
                       (7) The marriage ceremony be performed in the State by a
                       person or society with a valid license to solemnize
                       marriages and the man and the woman to be married and the
                       person performing the marriage ceremony be all physically
                       present at the same place and time for the marriage
                       ceremony. [L 1872, c 23, §1; am L 1903, c 28, §1; am L 1907,
                       c 42, §1; am L 1913, c 8, §1; RL 1925, §2943; RL 1935,
                       §4630; am L 1935, c 185, §1; am L 1937, c 59, §1; am L 1939,
                       c 122, §1; RL 1945, §12351; am L 1949, c 53, §29; am L 1953,
                       c 79, §1; RL 1955, §323-1; am L 1965, c 232, §1; HRS §572-1;
                       am L 1969, c 152, §1; am L 1970, c 9, §1; am L 1972, c 182,
                       §1 and c 192, pt of §1; am L 1978, c 74, §1; am L 1981, c
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • §572-1 Requisites of valid marriage contract.
  • In order to make valid the marriage contract, which shall be only between a man and a woman,
  • The respective parties do not stand in relation to each
  • blood, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, whether the
  • with the written approval of the family court of the circuit
  • within which the minor resides, it shall be lawful for a
  • person under the age of sixteen years,
  • the age of fifteen years, to marry, subject to section 5722;
  • The man does not at the time have any lawful wife living
  • Consent of neither party to the marriage has been
  • obtained by force, duress, or fraud;
  • loathsome disease concealed from, and unknown to, the other
  • duly obtained a license for that purpose from the agent
  • person or society with a valid license to solemnize
  • person performing the marriage ceremony be all physically
  • c 79, §1; RL 1955, §323-1; am L 1965, c 232, §1; HRS §572-1;

  • 9 . DEFENDENTAPPELLANTSREPLYBRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    BASIS
    GENDER
    HAW
    COUPLES
    MARRIAGE
    HAWAII
    APP
    TRADITIONAL COUPLES
    LAW
    LOVING
    HOMOSEXUALS
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION
    STATUTE
    PEREZ
    SUPREME COURT
    PROCEDURAL COMPLAINTS
    DISTRICT
    COLUMBIA
    FRONTIERO
    CONSTITUTION
    HETEROSEXUALS
    SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
    DISCRIMINATION
    DEFENDANT
    MERIT
    JUDGEMENT
    PROHIBITION
    CLASSIFICATION
    
                                             NO.20371
    
                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                          )     CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                          )
    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                            )     APPEAL FROM THE FINAL
    MELILLO,                                             )     JUDGMENT filed on
                                                         )     December ll, 1996
                         Plaintiffs-Appellees,           )) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
            v.                                           )) HONORABLE PATRICK YIM
    LAWRENCE MIIKE, in his official                      )     HONORABLE ROBERT KLEIN
    capacity as Director of the Department               )     HONORABLE HERBERT
    SHIMABUKURO
    of Health, State of Hawaii,                          )     HONORABLE KEVIN CHANG
                                                         )     Judges
                         Defendant-Appellant.            )
    ____________________________________________)
    
    
    
                              DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
    
                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    MARGERY S. BRONSTER, 4750                                       CHARLES J. COOPER
    Attorney General of Hawaii                                      (Admitted pro hac vice)
    DOROTHY SELLERS, 4069                                           MICHAEL A. CARVIN
    Deputy Attorney General                                         MICHAEL W. KIRK
    
    Department of the Attorney                                      Cooper & Carvin, PLLC
         General, State of Hawaii                                   2OOO K Street, N.W.
    425 Queen Street                                                Suite 401
    Honolulu,HI 96813                                               Washington, D.C. 20006
    (818) 586-1387                                                  (202) 822-8950
    
    June 16, 1997                                                   Counsel for
    Defendant-Appellant
    
    
                                     SUBJECT INDEX
    
    
                                                                 Page
    
    INTRODUCTION..........................................1
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • BASIS OF GENDER
  • TRADITIONAL COUPLES ARE ALL COMPELLING
  • PLAINTIFFS' PROCEDURAL COMPLAINTS ARE
  • Dean v. District of Columbia,
  • Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17 (Cal.
  • App.), review denied,
  • State v. Mueller, 66 Haw.
  • homosexuals from marriage.
  • treat the statute at issue for what it is (i.e., a reflisal to recognize gay marriages, a
  • drawn on the basis of sexual orientation), plaintiffs implicitly admit that the result they
  • would be foreclosed by a candid recognition that the law classifies on the basis of sexual
  • Hawaii's constitutional prohibition against sex discrimination does not even address,
  • case, the plurality quoted from Justice Powell's concurring opinion in Frontiero v.
  • If this Amendment is duly adopted, it will represent the will of the people accomplished in
  • Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 727 (Powell, 3., concurring in judgment)).
  • Plaintiffs' claim that gender is the basis for the classification rests entirely upon the
  • matter of simple logic that only homosexuals would enter a homosexual marriage.").
  • same-sex marriages removes any doubt that the true basis for the classification is sexual
  • But in light of the actual language employed by the framers, it is obvious, at a bare
  • the Missouri Supreme Court has rejected the analogous claim that a statute discriminating
  • individual to marry anyone within the class that heterosexuals wish to marry - persons of the
  • plaintiffs' quotation from Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, it was undisputed (and indeed,
  • PLAINTIFFS' PROCEDURAL COMPLAINTS ARE WITHOUT MERIT.
  • remanded with instructions to enter judginent in favor of defendant.

  • 10 . DEFENDANTAPPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEFREPLY

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    AMENDMENT
    LAW
    COURT
    HAW
    SAME-SEX
    CONSTITUTION
    HAWAII
    SEX
    SENATE
    MEANING
    MARRIAGE LICENSE
    SUPREME COURT
    NUUANU NEIGHBORHOOD
    RIGHTS
    EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
    GRAHAM CONSTR
    CONFERENCE COMM
    CIRCUIT COURT
    OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
    LEGISLATURE
    RETROACTIVITY
    MATSUNAGA
    LAW REVIEW
    HRS
    SENATE DRAFT
    SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
    IMMEDIATE
    DAVID ORGON COOLIDGE
    
                                            NO.20371
    
                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
                                                               CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
                  NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,
                  TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                 APPEAL FROM THE FINAL
                  PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                   JUDGMENT filed on
                  MELILLO,                                    December ll,1996
                                     P1aintiffs-Appellees,
                            vs.                               FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
    
                  BRUCE S. ANDERSON, in his                   HONORABLE PATRICK YIM
                  official capacity as Director of HONORABLE ROBERT
                  the Department of Health, State             KLEIN
                  of Hawaii,                                  HONORABLE HERBERT
                                                              SHIMABUKURO
                                     Defendant-Appellant. HONORABLE KEVIN CHANG
                                                              Judges
    
                       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF
    
    
    
                                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    
                  MARGERY S. BRONSTER,            CHARLES J. COOPER
                  4750                            (Admitted pro hac vice)
                  Attorney General of             MICHAEL A. CARVIN
                  Hawaii                          MICHAEL W. KIRK
                  DOROTHY SELLERS, 4069           NOEL J. FRANCISCO
                  Deputy Attorney General   Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal,
                  Department of the               PLLC
                  Attorney                        1500 K Street, N.W.
                  General, State of Hawaii  Suite 200
                  425 Queen Street                Washington, D.C. 20005
                  Honolulu, HI 96813              (202) 220-9600
                  (808) 586-1387
                                                  Counsel for Defendant-
                  February 1,1999                 Appellant
    
    
    
    
    
                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Section
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • Supply v. Schrader Constr., 63 Haw.
  • Editorial, Same Sex Marriage, Star Bulletin, Mar.
  • Senate Judiciary Committee, "For Immediate Release"
  • Marriage Law Not
  • Argument II.A makes clear that under the plain text of the Hawaii State Constitution, any law
  • Under either or both of these arguments, HR5 § 572-1, as currently written, is the operative
  • Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that even though the legislature is now free to reenact HRS §
  • As this Court explained in Nuuanu Neighborhood, "'t is well-established that, absent special
  • In light of the marriage amendment, it simply cannot be argued that HRS § 572-1 conflicts
  • It cannot be disputed that current law prohibits the State from issuing plaintiffs a marriage
  • the judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed.
  • Justice Story's definition of "retroactivity" likewise illustrates why plaintiffs' theory
  • it cannot even support Plaintiffs' more limited assertion that the legislatLire "lacked [the
  • In contrast to this equivocal evidence, every other source of the meaning of the marriage
  • But suffice it to say that on this question, even Senators Chumbley and Matsunaga, upon whom
  • Rather, the referenced Senate draft was never even considered by the House, presumably
  • (providing that the State's power to prohibit same-sex marriage "shall be effective only if
  • , with Conference Comm.
  • See generally David Orgon Coolidge, The Hawai i Marriage Amendment: Its Origins, Meaning, and
  • Senate Judiciary Committee, "For Immediate Release".

  • 11 . DEFENDANTAPPELLANTSBRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    LAW
    SAME-SEX
    BASIS
    CLASSIFICATION
    DISCRIMINATION
    GENDER
    STATUTE
    ORIENTATION
    COUPLES
    HAWAII
    APPEALS
    CLASSIFIES
    OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
    HAW
    SUPREME COURT
    CONSTITUTION
    PLURALITY OPINION
    PLAINTIFFS
    GENDER-BASED CLASSIFICATION
    HOMOSEXUALS
    HRS
    PROHIBITION
    INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATE
    TRADITIONS
    EQUAL PROTECTION
    CIRCUIT COURT
    UNITED STATES
    FINALLY RESOLVE
    
    
                                          NO. 20371
                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    
         NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                   )       CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
         TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                   )
         PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                     )       APPEAL FROM THE FINAL
         MELILLO,                                      )       JUDGMENT filed on
                                                       )       December 11, 1996
                       Plaintiffs-Appellees,           )) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
              v.                                       )) HONORABLE PATRICK YIM
         LAWRENCE MIIKE, in his official               )       HONORABLE ROBERT KLEIN
         capacity as Director of the Department)               HONORABLE HERBERT SHIMABUKURO
         of Health, State of Hawaii,                   )       HONORABLE KEVIN CHANG
                                                       )       Judges
                       Defendant-Appellant.            )
    __________________________________________)
    
    
                         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
    
                                   APPENDICES 1-3
    
                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    
    MARGERY S. BRONSTER, 4750                               CHARLES J. COOPER
    Attorney General of Hawaii                              (Admitted pro hac vice)
    DOROTHY SELLERS, 4069                                   MICHAEL A. CARVIN
    Deputy, Attorney General                                MICHAEL W. KIRK
    
    Department of the Attorney                              Cooper & Carvin, PLLC
    General, State of Hawaii                                2000 K Street, N.W.
    425 Queen Street                                        Suite 401
    Honolulu, HI 96813                                      Washington, D.C. 20006
    (818) 586-1387                                          (202) 822-8950
    
    April 29, 1997                                          Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
    
    
    
                                      SUBJECT INDEX
    
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................iii
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • HAWAII'S MARRIAGE LAW DOES NOT INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATE
  • The Marriage Law Classifies on the Basis of Sexual
  • Orientation, Not Gender
  • Same-Sex Couples And Opposite-Sex Couples Are Not "Similarly Situated" With Respect to
  • HAWAII HAS COMPELLING STATE INTERESTS IN MAINTAINING THE
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw.
  • Idaho v. United States,
  • Prior to the Circuit Court's opinion in this case, no court has concluded that such laws are
  • It will not do to conclude, as did the court below, that Article; I, section 5 -- a provision
  • Defendant is not suggesting that the institution of marriage may not be altered -- even in
  • By arrogating to itself the decision to alter fundamentally our culture's traditional, and
  • The Circuit Court's ruling, following the plurality opinion of two justices in the earlier
  • But, as demonstrated below, the statute at issue in this case does not classify on the basis
  • the law does not discriminate invidiously because men and women are simply not fungible with
  • Plaintiffs predicated their equal protection claim in this Court entirely upon the argument
  • A plurality of two concluded that HRS 572-1 imposes a sex-based classification on its face.
  • Chief Judge Burns disagreed with both the plurality and the dissent, concluding that the
  • HAWAII'S MARRIAGE LAW DOES NOT INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF GENDER.
  • The Earlier Appeal in this Case Did Not Finally Resolve the Question Whether the Marriage
  • the issue was neither raised nor argued during the first appeal because plaintiffs did not
  • Indeed, the irrelevance of sex to most State actions is undoubtedly the reason that it is
  • The plurality also refused to declare same-sex marriage as a new fundamental right under the
  • As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained, in

  • 12 . CALIFORNIAWITHDRAWALFROMAMICUS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    NEBRASKA
    CALIFORNIA
    WITHDRAWN
    COALITION
    AMICUS CURIAE
    PARTICIPATION
    COURT
    PROCEEDING
    MOTION
    SUPPLEMENTAL AMICUS
    ALAKEA STREET
    COUNSEL
    RECORD CALIFORNIA
    COLORADO
    IDAHO
    MISSISSIPPI
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    ADMIITED PRO HAC
    PRO HAC DAKOTA
    UTAH VICE
    AMICI
    HEREBY
    FILE AMICUS CURIAE
    THEREAFTER
    RESPONSE
    INVITATION
    ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL
    GENERAL BILL LOCKYER
    STATES JOINING
    
                                            No. 20371
    
                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
    
    
    
                       NINIA BAEHR, GENORA
                       DANCEL, TAMMY RODRIGUES,  Civil No. 91-1394-05
                       ANTOINETTE PREGIL, PAT                       (Injunctions)
                       LAGON, JOSEPH MELILLO,
                                                                    APPEAL FROM THE
                                          Plaintiffs-Appellees, FINDINGS OF FACT AND
                       vs.                                          CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                       LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his                    FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                       official capacity as Director of the
                       Department of Health, State of               THE HONORABLE KEVIN
                       Hawaii,                                      S.C. CHANG
    
                                         Defendant-Appellant.
    
                                  NOTICE OF CALIFORNIA'S WITHDRAWAL
    
                                                          and
    
                                           CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    
         Don Sternberg
         Attorney General,
         State of Nebraska
         L. Steven Grasz*             ROBERT BRUCE GRAHAM, JR., #1305-0
         Deputy Attorney General      1099 Alakea Street
         State of Nebraska            Alii Place, Suite 1400
         2115 State Capitol           Honolulu, HI 96813
         Lincoln, NE 68509            Tel: (808) 539-0400
         Tel: (402) 471-2682
                                      Local Counsel for Amici Curiae States of Nebraska, Alabama,
         *  Counsel of Record  California, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, South
         (Admiited pro hac  Dakota and Utah
         vice)
    
         Attorneys for Amici
         Curiae States
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Deputy Attorney General 1099 Alakea Street
  • * Counsel of Record California, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, South (Admiited
  • Attorneys for Amici Curiae States
  • Notice is hereby given that the State of California has withdrawn as a participating amicus
  • By Order entered herein on April 23, 1997, this Court granted the Motion of State of Nebraska
  • Thereafter, the State of Nebraska filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and a coalition
  • In response to this Court's invitation, the State of Nebraska filed a supplemental amicus
  • California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has informed the State of Nebraska of the State of
  • This Notice of California's Withdrawal concerns only the participation of the State of

  • 13 . AMICUSSTATES

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    HAWAII
    COURT
    RECOGNITION
    COMITY
    HRS
    LAWS
    CONGRESS
    SISTER STATES
    DEFENDANT
    SUPPORT
    THREAT
    CODE ANN
    STAT
    AMICI CURIAE STATES
    OPPOSITION
    MISSISSIPPI
    CONSTITUTION
    MARRIAGE ACT
    PUBLIC POLICY
    DOMA
    SUPREME COURT
    ALABAMA
    IDAHO
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    AMICI INTEND
    CONSISTENT
    CONSTITUTIONAL CONFRONTATION
    TRIAL COURT
    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
    
                                    No. 20371
    
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,          ) Civil No. 91-1394-OS
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE          ) (Injunctions)
    PREG1IL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH           )
    MELILLO,                             ) APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS OF
                                         ) FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                Plaintiffs-Appellees, ))
          V.                             ) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                                         ))
    LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his            ) THE HONORABLE KEVIN S.C. CHANG
    official capacity as Director        )
    of the Department of Health,         )
    State of Hawaii,                     ))
                Defendant-Appellant. )
    _________________________________)
    
    
                    BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE STATES OF NEBRASKA
         ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, GEORGIA, IDAHO, MICHIGAN,
          MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, SOUTH  CAROLINA and SOUTH DAKOTA
                        IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    
                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    DON STENBERG
    Attorney General
    State of Nebraska
    
    L. STEVEN GRASZ*                             ASHFORI) & WRISTON
    Deputy Attorney General                      ROBERT BRUCE GRAHAM, JR. #1305
    State of Nebraska                            1099 Alakea Street, 14th Floor
    2115 State Capitol                           Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
    Lincoln, NE 68509                            Telephone: 539-0400
    Tel: (402) 471-2682
    
    *Counsel of Record.
    (Admitted pro hac vice)
    
    Attorneys for Amici Curiae States.
    
    QAdditiona1 Counsel Listed on Next Page]
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE STATES OF NEBRASKA ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, GEORGIA, IDAHO,
  • MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, SOUTH CAROLINA and SOUTH DAKOTA
  • IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
  • and Decide Upon the State's Comity Arguments
  • The Threat of Forced Recognition of Hawaii
  • Opposition in Many Sister States And In
  • Consistent With That Accepted in All Other
  • Rejection of Same-Sex Marriage
  • Rev. Stat.
  • (HRS)
  • D.S. CODE LAWS ANN.
  • S.C. CODE ANN.
  • relations with other states and Congress.
  • POINTS ON WHICH AMICI INTEND TO RELY
  • the trial court acknowledged that the State
  • the Defense of Marriage Act,
  • The court also erroneously concluded That "Defendant does
  • states and the federal government.
  • P.L. 1-4-199 (DOMA) specifically enacted by Congress in response to the threat posed by this lict with other states justified the ban on same-sex marriage); (Tr.
  • Marriagee Has Generated Strong opposition in Many Sister
  • public policy and will not be recognized as marriages.
  • Executive Orders Against SSM Recognition: 1996: ALABAMA EXECUTIVE
  • Clause of the Constitution all states are obligated to give "full

  • 14 . AMICUSRUTHERFORDINSTITUTE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    HAWAII
    COURT
    SAME-SEX
    RATIONAL BASIS
    LEWIN
    RIGHTS
    PLURALITY OPINION
    APPELLEES
    MARRIAGE LICENSE
    BAEHR
    STANDARD
    SCRUTINY
    REVIEW
    COUPLES
    HAW
    SUPREME COURT
    EQUAL PROTECTION
    CONSTITUTION
    SUSPECT CLASS
    AMICUS CURIAE
    DISCRIMINATION
    MARRIAGE STATUTE
    MARITAL ESTATE
    EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS
    RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
    REJECTING
    CLASSIFICATION
    LEWIN ERR
    REVIEWABLE LNDER
    
                                                    No. 20371
    
                             IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF HAWAII
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                          )     Civ. No.91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                          )     (Injunctions)
    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                            )
    MELILLO,                                             )     APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS OF
                                                         )     FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
         Plaintiffs-Appellees,                           ))
                             vs.                         )     FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                                                         )
    LAWRENCEH.MIIKI,inhis                                )
    official capacity as Director                        )     THE HONORABLE KEVIN S.C. CHANG
    of the Depart~ent of Health,                         )
    State of Hawaii,                                     ))
         Defendant-Appellant.                            )
    __________________________________________)
    
    
                              BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
                AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
    
    
    OF COUNSEL: THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
    
    JOHN W. WHITEHEAD, ESQ.                                         STEVEN H. ADEN, ESQ.
    (5189-0)
    THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE                                        DOLD LaBERGE & ADEN
    P.O. Box 7482                                                   Ste 507, Bishop Trust
    Bldg.
    Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-7482                            1000 Bishop Street
    1.804.978.3888                                                  Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
                                                                    1.808.531.8886
    
    Attorneys for Movant                                            (Counsel of Record)
    THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
    
    
    
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED
    
    DID THE PLURALITY IN BAEHR V. LEWIN ERR IN APPLYING THE STRICT
    SCRUTINY STANDARD OF REVIEW, RATHER THAN THE RATIONAL BASIS
    STANDARD, TO THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DECLINE TO ISSUE MARRIAGE
    LICENSES TO APPELLEES?..........................................1
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF HAWAII
  • BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
  • DID THE PLURALITY IN BAEHR V. LEWIN ERR IN APPLYING THE STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD OF REVIEW,
  • TO APPELLEES?
  • REJECTING ANY DEFINITIONAL BASIS FOR INTERPRETING
  • HEALTH NOT TO ISSUE MARRIAGES LICENSES TO SAME-SEX
  • DISCRIMINATION", AND ACCORDINGLY THE DIRECTOR'S
  • DECISION IS NOT REVIEWABLE LNDER THE STRICT SCRUTINY
  • Rights" of the
  • The Director's Decision Not to Issue Marriage Licenses
  • REVIEW, THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY MORE
  • THAN ADEQUATE EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL COURT BELOW
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw.
  • Hawaii Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 5.....................7
  • DID THEE PLURALITY OPINION IN BAEHR V. LEWIN ERR IN APPLYING ThE STRICT
  • liberties" in its equal protection analysis turned upon the definition of the term in Black's
  • at 315 (relying upon Black's definition confirm the court's understanding of the marriage
  • TO SAME-SEX COUPLES DID NOT CONSTITUTE "INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION" AND ACCORDINGLY THE
  • the first consideration is whether a "fundamental right" or a "suspect classification" is
  • "If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,
  • The United States Supreme Court elucidated this initial
  • The plurality in Baehr v. Lewin erred in presuming that the State's restriction of the
  • the plurality cites Skirnier v. Oklahoma in its equal protection analysis for the proposition
  • one Appellee has been denied a marriage license based upon his or her sex, but rather on his

  • 15 . AMICUSNATLASSOCRESEARCHTHERAPYOFHOMOSEXUALITY

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FATHER
    PARENT
    CHILD
    HOMOSEXUALITY
    PSYCHOLOGISTS
    MOTHER-FATHER-CHILD
    SAME-SEX
    COUPLES
    AFFAIRS
    THERAPY
    HEALTHY
    ACT
    LAW
    CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES
    ANDREW SULLIVAN
    MALE-FEMALE MARRIAGE
    NARTH
    COURT
    REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP
    MALE
    PSYCHIATRY
    EVIDENCE
    AMICUS CURIAE
    IDEAL FAMILY STRUCTURE
    STANLEY
    CATH
    DAVID
    ABRAHAM
    LINCOLN
    
                                        NO. 20371
    
    
                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    
    NINA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,            ) Civil No. 91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE           ) (Injunctions)
    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH             )
    MELILLO,                              ) APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS
                                          ) OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
          Plaintiffs-Appellees,           ) OF LAW
                                          )
          vs.                             ) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                                          )
    LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his             ) HONORABLE KEVIN S. C. CHANG
    official capacity as Director )
    of the Department of Health,          )
    State of Hawaii,                      ))
                  Defendant-Appellant.)
    _______________________________)
    
                      NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND
                         THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY, INC.'S
                                 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
    
                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    BERTON T. KATO      #1316
    1014 Kapahulu Avenue
    Second Floor
    Honolulu, Hawaii       96816
    Telephone:      (808) 735-6000
    
    Attorney for
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
    RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF
    HOMOSEXUALITY, INC.
    
    
                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                           Page
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................i
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
  • NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY,
  • Traditional Marriage as the Ideal Family Structure
  • The Mother-Father-Child Relationship is Necessary
  • For the Development of Healthy Children
  • Danish Registered Partnership Act, Act No. 372, June 7, 1989.........4
  • Swedish Law Regarding Registered Partnership, June 23, 1994
  • (Stanley H. Cath et al. eds.,
  • David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America
  • Experts Find Extramarital Affairs Have A Profound
  • Investigations of the Early Father-Infant Relationship, in Father and Child: Developmental
  • Abraham Lincoln,
  • David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple:
  • Andrew Sullivan,
  • over 650 psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers
  • This experience provides NARTH with a unique perspective on the comparative effects of
  • and same-sex relationships on children.
  • traditional male-female marriage as the ideal family structure.
  • Numerous studies show that men and women parent
  • FATHER AND CHILD is an award-winning collection of articles by the foremost experts in child
  • have explicitly denied these couples access to adoption and/or
  • But increasing clinical evidence and a recent study suggest that subtle changes in an
  • In the words of Abraham

  • 16 . AMICUSNAMAMOO HAWAII

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CUSTOM
    TRADITIONS
    HAW
    COURT
    RIGHTS
    LAW
    CULTURE
    BIOLOGICAL-PARENT
    PARENTS
    ADOPTION
    PROTECT
    ESTATE
    MARY KAWENA
    SAME-GENDER RELATIONSHIPS
    CHILD
    MAMO
    RECOGNITION
    DENIED1
    MARRIAGE
    MARY KAWENA PUKUI
    CONSTITUTION
    PRTG
    HAERTIG
    CATHERINE
    NANA
    KUMU
    PRACTICES
    USAGE
    FAMILIES
    
                                                  No.20371
    
                         IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF HAWAII
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                        ) CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                        ) (Injunctions)
    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                          )
    MELILLO,                                           ))
                    Plaintiffs-Appellees,              )) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
            vs.                                        )) THE HONORABLE KEVIN S.C. CHANG
    LAWRENCE MIIKE, in His Official                    )
    Capacity as Director of the Department             )
    of Health, State of Hawaii,                       ))
                    Defendant-Appellant.               )
    _________________________________________)
    
                       NA MAMO 0 HAWAII'S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
    
                                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
                                                             Of Counsel:
                                                             ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
                                                             Attorneys at Law
                                                             A Law Corporation
    
                                                             PAUL ALSTON    1126  0
                                                             LEA O. HONG    5558  0
                                                             18th Floor, Pacific Tower
                                                             1001 Bishop Street
                                                             Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
                                                             Telephone: (808) 524-1800
    
                                                             Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
                                                             Na Mamo 0 Hawaii
    
    
    
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    I.        QUESTION PRESENTED....................................2
    
    II.       ARGUMENT..............................................2
    
              A.      The Court Must Protect Hawaiian Traditional
                      And Customary Rights.............................3
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF HAWAII
  • NA MAMO 0 HAWAII'S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
  • The Court Must Protect Hawaiian Traditional
  • And Customary Rights
  • In re Estate of Nakuapa, deceased, 3 Haw.
  • 425, 903 P.2d 1246, cert denied1 134 L. Ed. 2d 660..........3
  • E.S. Craighill Handy & Mary Kawena Pukui, The Polynesian Family System In Ka'u, Hawaii (9th
  • Mary Kawena Pukui, E.W. Haertig, Catherine A. Lee, Nana I Ke Kumu (6th prtg.
  • Nana 1 Ke Kumu
  • legal recognition of same-sex marriage based on an interest in encouraging the rearing
  • well-recognized customs and traditions regarding the raising of children by nonbiologi1ical
  • traditions, and customs relevant to child-rearing and same-gender relationships.
  • with Hawaiian tradition and custom
  • Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution expressly states that:
  • these practices have, without harm to anyone, been continued, we are of the opinion
  • See also HRS § 1-11 which requires this court to follow Hawaiian common law as established by
  • creating the "best" environment for "optimal" child development.
  • Hawaiian and Asian families of this state have long maintained strong ties among members of
  • The Hawaiian concept of adoption also differs from that in other common law jurisdictions.
  • In traditional Hawaiian culture,
  • that biological-parent families create the "best" environment for a child's

  • 17 . AMICUSMORMONS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    MARRIAGE
    CHURCH
    LATTER-DAY SAINTS
    PROTECTION
    HAWAII
    HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
    CITY
    LAW
    CONSTITUTION
    FATHER
    GOVERNMENT
    FAMILY UNIT
    TRADITIONAL FAMILY LIES
    SUPREME COURT
    BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT
    IMPORTANCE
    FAMILY LIFE
    EMPHASIS
    PROCREATION
    FIRST PRESIDENCY
    FUNDAMENTAL UNIT
    AMICUS CURIAE
    FREDERICK
    ROHLFING
    HONOLULU
    EAST CLEVELAND
    WISCONSIN
    TELEVISION
    
     No 20371
                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF HAWAII
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,                                    )     CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE                                    )     (Injunctions)
    PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                                      )
    MELILLO,                                                       ))    APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS OF
                             Plaintiffs-Appellees,                 )     FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                                                                   )
                vs.                                                )     FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
                                                                   )
    LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his official                             )
    capacity as Director of the Department of                      )     HONORABLE KEVIN S.C. CHANG
    Health, State of Hawaii,                                       ))
                             Defendant-Appellant.                  )
    ____________________________________________)
    
    
         AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
    
                                                                 APPENDIX A
                                                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    FREDERICK W. ROHLFING III & ASSOCIATES
    
    FREDERICK W. ROHLFING III, #3474
    J. STEVENS KEALI'IWAHAMANA HOAG, #6724
    Grosvenor Center, Mauka Tower
    737 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
    Telephone: (808)534-1188
    
    Attorneys for
         THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
         OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
    
    
    
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    
          I.           SUMMARY OF THE INTEREST OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
                       LATTER-DAY SAINTS..................................................1
    
          II. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED................................1
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
  • FREDERICK W. ROHLFING III & ASSOCIATES
  • Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: 534-1188
  • The Traditional Family Lies at the Heart of Society,
  • Courts Have Long-Recognized that the Protection of the Traditional Family and the Benefits it
  • Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654, 662 (D.C.
  • West Valley City, 875 F. Supp.
  • Bruce C. Hafen, The Constitutional Status of Marriage, Kinship and Sexual Privacy: Balancing
  • Terkeisen, Toward a Theory of the Family Life Cycle, in the Family Life Cycle: A Framework
  • Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father
  • We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those
  • A Proclamation to the World, The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The
  • Whether there is a compelling state interest to preserve the fundamental unit of society -
  • Older than our nation, our Constitution, and the centuries of common law upon which our
  • While societies and even systems of government evolve throughout the ages, the family unit,
  • The importance of maintaining the integrity of that function is inestimable.
  • A decision by this Court to strike down the requirement that marriage must be between a man
  • The Traditional Family Lies at the Heart of Society Providing Benefits Which Can Be Realized
  • States Supreme Court - accompanied by numerous rulings from state courts - "establish that
  • Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 124 (emphasis added;
  • Cf. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, in which the United States Supreme Court
  • Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-504.
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232.
  • Homosexual marriage obviously cannot provide society or children with this unique and
  • it seems beyond dispute that the state has a compelling interest in fostering procreation of
  • Honolulu, Hawaii; April 14, 1997.

  • 18 . AMICUSMADISONSOCIETY

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LAW
    HAWAII
    APPELLANT
    EVIDENCE
    MADISON SOCIETY
    COURT
    DISCRIMINATION
    JUSTIFY
    HAW
    AMICUS CURIAE
    SUPPORT
    SEX
    MIIKE
    HONOLULU
    DEPARTURE
    MATTER
    SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
    DETERMINATIONS
    ORIENTATION
    CONSTITUTION
    FINDINGS
    LANDMARK
    JUSTIFY DEVIATING
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
    EQUAL PROTECTION
    PROCREATION
    PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
    APPELLANT UTTERLY FAILS
    APPELLANT MIIKE CONTENDS
    
                                         No. 20371
    
                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
    
    
    NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL,               ) CIVIL NO. 91-1394-05
    TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE               ) (Injunctions)
    PRECIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH                 )
    MELILLO,                                  ) APPEAL FROM THE FINDINGS OF
                                              ) FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                 Plaintiffs-Appellees,        )) FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
          vs.                                 ))
    LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his                 )
    official capacity as Director             ) THE HONORABLE KEVIN S.C. CHANG
    of the Department of Health,              )
    State of Hawaii,                          ))
                 Defendant-Appellant.         )
    __________________________________)
    
           AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE MADISON SOCIETY OF HAWAII
                        IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
    
    
                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
    
    
    KAREN A. ESSENE 4512
    2133 Alaloa Place
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96821
    Telephone (808) 732-2192
    
    Attorney for Amicus Curiae
    THE MADISON SOCIETY OF HAWAII
    
    
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                         page
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................iii
    
    I.     QUESTIONS PRESENTED.........................................1
    
    II. ARGUMENT....................................................1
    
           A.     Under the "law of the case," determinations of law
                  made on the first appeal cannot be reopened on the
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
  • AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE MADISON SOCIETY OF HAWAII
  • IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
  • Under the "law of the case," determinations of law
  • case that would justify deviating from the law of
  • Appellant's argument that the marriage law
  • any evidence about the matter at trial............2
  • justify a departure from the law of the case,
  • Appellant utterly fails to articulate,
  • to recognize same-sex marriages cannot be
  • , clarified bv 74 Haw.
  • Baehr v. Miike,
  • City and County of Honolulu v. Toyama,
  • Under the "law of the case," determinations of law made
  • The landmark decision in Baehr v. Lewin,
  • Altho