Text of Hawai'i ruling Page: 1 of 10
5 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this article.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXT OF HAWAII RULING
NO. 20371
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL, TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE PREGIL, PAT
LAGON, JOSEPH MELILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. LAWRENCE MIIKE, in his official
capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant.
CIV. NO. 91-1394-05 APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT filed on December 11, 1996.
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 201 and 202 (1993), this court takes
judicial notice of the following: On April 29, 1997, both houses of the Hawai'i legislature
passed, upon final reading, House Bill No. 117 proposing an amendment to the Hawai'i
Constitution (the marriage amendment). See 1997 House Journal at 922; 1997 Senate Journal at
766. The bill proposed the addition of the following language to article I of the Constitution:
"Section 23. The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."
See 1997 Haw. Sess. L. H.B. 117 2, at 1247. The marriage amendment was ratified by the
electorate in November 1998.
In light of the foregoing, and upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs and
supplemental briefs submitted by the parties and amicus curiae and having given due
consideration to the arguments made and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the
defendant-appellant Lawrence Miike's appeal as follows:
On December 11, 1996, the first circuit court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees
Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, and Joseph
Melillo (collectively, "the plaintiffs") and against Miike, ruling (1) that the sex-based
classification in Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 572-1 (1985) was "unconstitutional" by
virtue of being "in violation of the equal protection clause of article I, section 5 of the Hawai[']i
Constitution," (2) that Miike, his agents, and any person acting in concert with or by or through
Miike were enjoined from denying an application for a marriage license because applicants were
of the same sex, and (3) that costs should be awarded against Miike and in favor of the
plaintiffs. The circuit court subsequently stayed enforcement of the injunction against Miike.
The passage of the marriage amendment placed HRS 572-1 on new footing. The marriage
amendment validated HRS 572-1 by taking the statute out of the ambit of the equal
protection clause of the Hawai'i Constitution, at least insofar as the statute, both on its face
and as applied, purported to limit access to the marital status to opposite-sex couples.
Accordingly, whether or not in the past it was violative of the equal protection clause in the
foregoing respect, HRS 572-1 no longer is. (1) In light of the marriage amendment, HRS 572-1
must be given full force and effect.
The plaintiffs seek a limited scope of relief in the present lawsuit, i.e., access to
applications for marriage licenses and the consequent legally recognized marital status.
Inasmuch as HRS 572-1 is now a valid statute, the relief sought by the plaintiffs is
unavailable. The marriage amendment has rendered the plaintiffs' complaint moot. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed and that the case
be remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Miike and against the plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the circuit court shall not enter costs or attorneys' fees
against the plaintiffs.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 9, 1999. On the briefs: Charles J. Cooper (of Cooper,
Carvin & Rosenthal, PLLC) and Margery S. Bronster (Attorney General of Hawai'i), for the
defendant-appellant Lawrence Miike Daniel R. Foley (of Partington & Foley), Evan Wolfson
(of Lambda Legal Defense Fund, Inc.), and Kirk H. Cashmere, for the plaintiffs-appellees
Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, and Joseph
Melillo James E.T. Koshiba (of Koshiba Agena & Kubota), for amicus curiae Hawaii's Future
Today Craig Furusho, for amicus curiae The National Legal Foundation Robert K. Matsumoto,
Jay Alan Sekulow (of The American Center for Law & Justice), and Marie A. Sheldon, for amici
curiae Representative Michael Kahikina, Representative Ezra Kanoho, Representative David
Stegmaier, Representative Romy M. Cachola, Representative Felipe Abinsay, Jr., and
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Text of Hawai'i ruling, article, December 9, 1999; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc915900/m1/1/: accessed June 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.