Baehr v. Miike

Baehr v. Miike
Court Supreme Court of Hawaii
Full case name NINIA BAEHR, GENORA DANCEL, TAMMY RODRIGUES, ANTOINETTE PREGIL, PAT LAGON, JOSEPH MELILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
LAWRENCE H. MIIKE, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant
Date decided December 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
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

Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin) is a 1993 Supreme Court of Hawaii case in which three same-sex couples argued that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. After a dismissal by the trial court, the Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that denying marriage to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex in violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantee and required the state to prove at trial that it had a "compelling" interest in barring such marriages.

The state advanced several interests it claimed were compelling but the trial court disagreed, enjoining the state from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but staying the ruling to allow for an appeal. While the case was pending, voters approved a state constitutional amendment giving the state legislature the power to reserve marriage to mixed-sex couples. The state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that this mooted the plaintiffs' case, although the court did not rescind its ruling that denying the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples was discriminatory.

Contents

Background

On December 19, 1990, three same-sex couples, Ninia Baehr and Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodriguez and Antoinette Pregil, and Pat Lagoon and Joe Melillo, applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii Department of Health. The three couples met all of the requirements set forth in Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) § 572-1, the state law setting forth 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 although under the United States Constitution the right to marry is fundamental, it was so only for mixed-sex couples. On April 12, 1991, the Department of Health denied the applications, citing the Attorney General's opinion. On May 1 the couples filed suit against Lewin in his official capacity, seeking to have the same-sex exclusion declared unconstitutional.[1] Thus the case was originally named Baehr v. Lewin.

Baehr v. Lewin

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 and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny. On May 5, 1993 (with clarification issued on May 27), the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court, instructing that "in accordance with the 'strict scrutiny' standard, the burden will rest on Lewin to overcome the presumption that HRS § 572-1 is unconstitutional by demonstrating that it furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights."[2]

Legislative response

In response to the court's ruling, the Hawaii State Legislature passed Act 217, Session Laws of Hawaii 1994. This Act redefined marriage pursuant to HRS § 572-1 to include only mixed-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 through Act 5, Session Laws of Hawaii 1995. While the Commission studied the issue the case was stayed, and following his appointment as State Director of Health Lawrence H. Miike was substituted for Lewin as defendant, which changed the name of the case to Baehr v. Miike.

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 up to same-sex couples and that it create a comprehensive domestic partnership act to be open to couples of any sex composition.[3]

Baehr v. Miike

On September 10, 1996, Baehr v. Miike went to trial before Judge Kevin S.C. Chang. 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. That the State has a compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of children and other persons.
  2. That the State has a compelling interest in fostering procreation within a marital setting.
  3. That the State has a compelling interest in securing or assuring recognition of Hawaii marriages in other jurisdictions.
  4. That the State has a compelling interest in protecting the State's public fisc from the reasonably foreseeable effects of State approval of same-sex marriage in the laws of Hawaii.
  5. That the State has a compelling state interest in 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 to bolster its claims. Although under no burden to do so, 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 HRS § 572-1 was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights. He enjoined the state from refusing to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples.[4] The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal.[5]

Amendment 2

On November 3, 1998, Hawaii voters approved Amendment 2 by a margin of 69.2–28.6%.[6] The amendment read: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."[7] On December 9, 1999, the state Supreme Court, taking judicial notice of the amendment, ruled that "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. In light of the marriage amendment, HRS § 572-1 must be given full force and effect." Because the remedy sought by the plaintiffs, access to marriage licenses, was no longer available, the Court reversed Chang's ruling and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.[8]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Eskridge, p. 4
  2. ^ 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)
  3. ^ Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law (1995-12-08). "State of Hawaii Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law". State of Hawaii. http://hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/soldoc.html. Retrieved 2010-08-18. 
  4. ^ Baehr v. Miike, Circuit Court for the First Circuit, Hawaii No. 91-1394
  5. ^ Oshiro, Sandra (1996-12-06). "Hawaiian judge puts same-sex marriage ruling on hold". The Nation (Thailand: Reuter): p. A12. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4BYuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zjADAAAAIBAJ&pg=4305,2060755&dq=hawaii+judge+stays+marriage+ruling&hl=en. Retrieved 2010-08-18. 
  6. ^ General Election 1998, Hawaii Office of Elections, 1998-11-03, http://hawaii.gov/elections/results/1998/general/98swgen.htm, retrieved 2010-07-06 
  7. ^ Hawai'i State Constitution, Article I, section 23, Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau.
  8. ^ Baehr v. Miike, No. 20371 (Supreme Court of Hawaii 1999-12-09).

References