Text of Hawai'i ruling Page: 3 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:
I
Representative Gene Ward Karen A. Essene, for amicus curiae The Madison Society of Hawai'i
Berton T. Kato, for amicus curiae National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality, Inc. Paul Alston and Lea O. Hong (of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing), for amicus
curiae N Mamo 0 Hawai'i Sandra Dunn, Steffen N. Johnson (of Mayer, Brown & Platt), and
Kimberlee W. Colby, Steven T. McFarland, and Samuel B. Casey (of Christian Legal Society),
for amici curiae The Christian Legal Society, Lutheran Church < Missouri Synod, National
Association of Evangelicals, The Institute on Religion and Democracy, The Association for
Church Renewal, Liberty Counsel, Biblical Witness Fellowship, Episcopalians United, Inc.,
The Presbyterian Lay Committee, Focus Renewal Ministries in the United Church of Christ,
and Good News: A Forum for Scriptural Christianity Within the United Methodist Church
Michael Livingston (of Davis, Levin, Livingston & Grande) and Mary L. Bonauto and Amelia
A. Craig (of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), for amici curiae Gay and Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders, National Organization for Women, Inc., National Organization for
Women Foundation, Inc., NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Center for Lesbian
Rights, Northwest Women's Law Center, People For The American Way, Asian American
Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Steven H. Aden (of Dold LaBerge & Aden), for amicus curiae The Rutherford Institute Richard
Kiefer (of Carlsmith Ball Wichman Case & Ichiki), for amici curiae Urie Brofenbrenner,
Ph.D., Susan D. Cochran, Ph.D., Anthony R. D'Augelli, Ph.D., Susan E. Golombok, Ph.D.,
Richard Green, M.D., J.D., Martha Kirkpatrick, M.D., Lawrence A. Kurdek, Ph.D., Letitia
Anne Peplau, Ph.D., Ritch C. Savin-Williams, Ph.D., Royce W. Scrivner, Ph.D., and Fiona
Tasker, Ph.D. Frederick W. Rohlfling III and J. Stevens Keali'iwahamana Hoag (of Frederick
W. Rohlfling III & Associates), for amicus curiae The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints Mary Blaine Johnston, for amicus curiae American Friends Service Committee Robert
Bruce Graham, Jr. (of Ashford & Wriston), for amicus curiae Hawaii Catholic Conference
David S. Brustein, for amici curiae Andrew J. Cherlin, Ph.D., Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Ph.D.,
Sara S. McLanahan, Ph.D., Gary D. Sandefur, Ph.D., Lawrence L. Wu, Ph.D. Ronald V. Grant
(of Dwyer Imanaka Schraff Kudo Meyer & Fujimoto), for amicus curiae Independent Women's
Forum Paul Alston and William M. Kaneko (of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing), for amicus curiae
Japanese Americans Citizens League of Honolulu Robert Bruce Graham, Jr. (of Ashford &
Wriston) and L. Steven Grasz (Deputy Attorney General, State of Nebraska), for amici curiae
states of Nebraska, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
South Carolina, and South Dakota Chris R. Davis (of Phelps-Chartered) and Robert Bruce
Graham (of Ashford & Wriston), for amicus curiae Westboro Baptist Church Edward C.
Kemper, Sandy S. Ma (of American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i Foundation), Matthew A.
Coles and Jennifer Middleton (of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation), and Leslie G.
Fagan and Tobias Barrington Wolff (of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison), for amicus
curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i Foundation Thomas J. Kuna-Jacob (pro se),
amicus curiae Robert Bruce Graham, Jr. (of Ashford & Wriston) and David Zweibel (of
Agudath Israel of America), for amicus curiae Agudath Israel of America
1. In this connection, we feel compelled to address two fundamental misapprehensions
advanced by Justice Ramil in his concurrence in the result that we reach today. First, Justice
Ramil appears to misread the plurality opinion in Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44,
reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 650, 875 P.2d 225 (1993) [hereinafter,
"Baehr I"], to stand for the proposition that HRS 572-1 (1985) defines the legal status of
marriage "to include unions between persons of the same sex." Concurrence at 1. Actually, that
opinion expressly acknowledged that "[r]udimentary principles of statutory construction renders
manifest the fact that, by its plain language, HRS 572-1 restricts the marital relation to a
male and a female." Baehr I, 74 Haw. at 563, 852 P.2d at 60. Second, because, in his view, HRS
572-1 limits access to a marriage license on the basis of "sexual orientation," rather than
"sex," see concurrence at 1 n.1, Justice Ramil asserts that the plurality opinion in Baehr I
mistakenly subjected the statute to strict scrutiny, see id. at 2-3. Notwithstanding the fact that
HRS 572-1 obviously does not forbid a homosexual person from marrying a person of the
opposite sex, but assuming arguendo that Justice Ramil is correct that the touchstone of the
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/m1/3/: accessed June 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.