329:. The three couples met the requirements of the state law that detailed eligibility requirements for marriage, except for being of the same sex. State health director John C. Lewin requested an opinion from the Hawaii Attorney General's office, which concluded on December 27 that under the United States Constitution the right to marry is fundamental, but only for different-sex couples. On April 12, 1991, the Department of Health denied the license applications, citing the Attorney General's opinion. On May 1 the couples initiated their lawsuit,
248:
415:
denying same-sex couples the ability to marry and that, even if it had, it failed to prove that the Hawaii statute was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights. He instructed the state to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the
Supreme Court reverse him on appeal.
143:
375:
Commission was established. While the
Commissions studied the issue the case was stayed. The Commission issued its report on December 8, 1995. In examining the many benefits associated with marriage along with public policy reasons for extending such benefits to same-sex couples, the Commission recommended that the legislature open marriage to same-sex couples and that it create as well a comprehensive
445:...is a response to a very particular development in the State of Hawaii.... he state courts in Hawaii appear to be on the verge of requiring that State to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The prospect of permitting homosexual couples to "marry" in Hawaii threatens to have very real consequences both on federal law and on the laws (especially the marriage laws) of the various States.
353:. The Court considered whether the Hawaii constitution's right to privacy included a fundamental right to same-sex marriage and concluded that it did not. The Court did find however that under the state's equal protection clause, denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples constituted discrimination based on sex that required justification by the state under the standard known as
305:. Initiated in 1990, as the case moved through the state courts, the passage of an amendment to the state constitution in 1998 led to the dismissal of the case in 1999. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution would have provided that all states would be potentially required to recognize marriages obtained in Hawaii, prompting the passage of the federal
374:
In response to the court's ruling, Hawaii enacted a new statute that defined marriage to include only different-sex couples and created the
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law to study the issue of granting benefits to same-sex couples. Following the failure of the first Commission, a second
414:
The state called four expert witnesses with specialties in psychology and sociology. The plaintiffs also called four expert witnesses with specialties in psychology, sociology and child development. On
December 3, 1996, Judge Chang ruled that the state had not established any compelling interest in
427:
that allowed the state "to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." On
December 9, 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled that the marriage amendment removed the plaintiffs' legal objections to the state's eligibility requirements for marriage and definition of marriage. The Court reversed Chang's
366:, joined by Chief Justice Moon, wrote the plurality opinion, though Court of Appeals Judge (filling in for a recused Justice) James S. Burns wrote a concurrence of the judgment reaching the same conclusion as the plurality opinion, thus remanding the case back to the trial court.
361:
the case to the trial court to determine if the state could meet that standard by demonstrating that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples "furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights."
394:, with the name of the new State Director of Health, Lawrence H. Miike, replacing that of his predecessor. Hawaii put forth five state interests it claimed were sufficiently "compelling" to allow it to bar same-sex couples from marrying. These interests were:
449:
In 1997, while the case was pending, and before the passage of the state constitutional amendment that reinforced the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the state responded to the recommendations of the
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law by offering
506:
As
Republicans prepared for the 1996 Presidential election, they came up with what they thought was an extremely clever strategy. A gay-rights lawsuit in Hawaii was gaining press coverage… believed...giving them a campaign issue: the defense of
440:
case at length and argued for passage because "a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits." It said the proposed statute:
112:
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
454:
to any adults who were prohibited by state law from marrying, including same-sex couples, blood relatives, and housemates. The benefits that status provided were less than those of civil marriage.
310:
325:
On
December 17, 1990, three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii Department of Health with the encouragement of local gay rights activist
692:
829:
627:
279:
886:
451:
229:
382:
Following his appointment as State
Director of Health, Lawrence H. Miike substituted for Lewin as defendant, changing the name of the case.
547:
341:
had declined to represent them as it debated the importance of marriage itself and whether taking the issue to court was a wise strategy.
436:
As
Congress considered passing DOMA, the House Judiciary Committee's Report on the legislation in 1996 discussed the implications of the
407:
protecting the State's public fisc from the reasonably foreseeable effects of State approval of same-sex marriage in the laws of Hawaii
424:
410:
protecting civil liberties, including the reasonably foreseeable effects of State approval of same-sex marriages, on its citizens.
861:
856:
851:
338:
488:
47:
Lawrence H. Miike, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant
272:
612:
632:, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993)
582:
173:
80:, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993)
743:
866:
301:) was a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the
221:
881:
871:
811:
530:
265:
43:
Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, Jeseph Mellilo, Plaintiffs-Appellees
891:
194:
463:
225:
775:
357:. On May 5, 1993 (with clarification issued on May 27), the Supreme Court split in a 2-1-2 decision to
358:
876:
773:
350:
306:
32:
718:
604:
597:
302:
233:
187:
835:
801:
520:
468:
334:
333:, seeking to have the same-sex exclusion declared unconstitutional. They were represented by
180:
131:
390:
Beginning on September 10, 1996, Judge Kevin S.C. Chang conducted the trial in the case of
376:
8:
99:
807:
608:
578:
526:
349:
On October 1, 1991, the trial court dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs appealed to the
326:
774:
United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 9, 1996).
747:
363:
354:
209:
655:
493:
548:"The Surprising Honolulu Origins of the National Fight Over Same-Sex Marriage"
428:
ruling and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.
845:
740:
838:
Circuit Court of the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii. December 3, 1996
653:
575:
The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment
404:
securing or assuring recognition of Hawaii marriages in other jurisdictions
252:
657:
State of Hawaii Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
552:
764:, No. 20371 (Supreme Court of Hawaii 1999-12-09).
654:
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law (December 8, 1995).
142:
398:
protecting the health and welfare of children and other persons
750:, Article I, section 23, Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau.
309:(DOMA) in 1996 under Bill Clinton. Dozens of statutes and
681:, Circuit Court for the First Circuit, Hawaii No. 91-1394
85:, Circuit Court for the First Circuit, Hawaii No. 91-1394
16:
Lawsuit against Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage
806:. NY: Delmar Learning/West Legal Studies. p. 144.
693:"Hawaiian judge puts same-sex marriage ruling on hold"
525:. Albany, NY: Delmar/West Legal Studies. p. 135.
379:
act to be open to all couples without respect to sex.
489:"Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act"
596:
311:constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions
98:James S. Burns, Walter M. Heen, Robert G. Klein,
843:
723:, Hawaii Office of Elections, November 3, 1998
401:fostering procreation within a marital setting
337:, an experienced local civil rights attorney.
230:Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii
273:
423:On November 3, 1998, Hawaii voters approved
280:
266:
776:"Report 104-664: Defense of Marriage Act"
545:
486:
599:America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage
603:. Cambridge University Press. pp.
594:
518:
369:
339:Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
844:
690:
425:an amendment to the state constitution
887:United States same-sex union case law
832:Supreme Court of Hawaii. May 5, 1993.
799:
487:Socarides, Richard (March 8, 2013).
691:Oshiro, Sandra (December 6, 1996).
452:reciprocal beneficiary registration
123:Same-sex marriage, Equal protection
13:
539:
344:
141:
128:
14:
903:
823:
546:Issenberg, Sasha (May 31, 2021).
313:at the state level also followed
102:, Ronald Moon (original Justices)
64:Supreme Court of Hawaii No. 20371
246:
222:LGBT rights in the United States
793:
767:
753:
734:
711:
699:. Thailand: Reuter. p. A12
684:
862:1999 in United States case law
857:1996 in United States case law
852:1993 in United States case law
672:
647:
635:
621:
588:
567:
512:
480:
1:
644:, 852 P.2d 44, 48 (Haw. 1993)
418:
320:
519:Statsky, William P. (2002).
195:Hawaii Marriage Equality Act
134:transgender rights in Hawaii
132:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
7:
595:Pinello, Daniel R. (2006).
464:Same-sex marriage in Hawaii
457:
226:Same-sex marriage in Hawaii
10:
908:
803:Introduction to Family Law
741:Hawai'i State Constitution
573:William N. Eskridge, Jr.,
174:Constitutional Amendment 2
431:
122:
117:
111:
106:
94:
89:
73:
68:
60:
52:
38:
28:
23:
577:(NY: Free Press, 1996),
474:
385:
867:Legal history of Hawaii
522:Family Law, 5th edition
351:Supreme Court of Hawaii
307:Defense of Marriage Act
33:Supreme Court of Hawaii
447:
234:LGBT history in Hawaii
146:
882:Hawaii state case law
872:LGBT rights in Hawaii
720:General Election 1998
469:LGBT rights in Hawaii
443:
145:
892:1999 in LGBT history
800:Gallo, N.R. (2004).
377:domestic partnership
370:Legislative response
113:defendant-appellant.
137:
746:2010-07-30 at the
303:state constitution
147:
129:
100:Steven H. Levinson
660:. State of Hawaii
290:
289:
199:
192:
185:
178:
171:
162:
127:
126:
899:
818:
817:
797:
791:
790:
788:
786:
780:
771:
765:
763:
757:
751:
738:
732:
731:
730:
728:
715:
709:
708:
706:
704:
688:
682:
676:
670:
669:
667:
665:
651:
645:
639:
633:
625:
619:
618:
602:
592:
586:
571:
565:
564:
562:
560:
543:
537:
536:
516:
510:
509:
503:
501:
484:
364:Justice Levinson
327:William E. Woods
282:
275:
268:
262:
253:LGBTQ portal
251:
250:
249:
197:
190:
183:
176:
169:
160:
138:
90:Court membership
56:December 9, 1999
21:
20:
907:
906:
902:
901:
900:
898:
897:
896:
842:
841:
826:
821:
814:
798:
794:
784:
782:
781:. pp. 4–11
778:
772:
768:
759:
758:
754:
748:Wayback Machine
739:
735:
726:
724:
717:
716:
712:
702:
700:
689:
685:
677:
673:
663:
661:
652:
648:
640:
636:
626:
622:
615:
593:
589:
572:
568:
558:
556:
544:
540:
533:
517:
513:
499:
497:
485:
481:
477:
460:
434:
421:
388:
372:
355:strict scrutiny
347:
345:First decisions
323:
286:
260:
247:
245:
240:
232:
228:
224:
216:
210:Equality Hawaii
204:
193:
188:Senate Bill 232
186:
179:
172:
163:
152:
133:
81:
46:
44:
17:
12:
11:
5:
905:
895:
894:
889:
884:
879:
877:1999 in Hawaii
874:
869:
864:
859:
854:
840:
839:
836:Baehr v. Miike
833:
830:Baehr v. Lewin
825:
824:External links
822:
820:
819:
812:
792:
766:
761:Baehr v. Miike
752:
733:
710:
683:
679:Baehr v. Miike
671:
646:
642:Baehr v. Lewin
634:
629:Baehr v. Lewin
620:
614:978-0521848565
613:
587:
566:
538:
531:
511:
494:The New Yorker
478:
476:
473:
472:
471:
466:
459:
456:
433:
430:
420:
417:
412:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
392:Baehr v. Miike
387:
384:
371:
368:
346:
343:
331:Baehr v. Lewin
322:
319:
299:Baehr v. Lewin
294:Baehr v. Miike
288:
287:
285:
284:
277:
270:
259:
256:
255:
242:
241:
237:
236:
218:
217:
213:
212:
206:
205:
201:
200:
181:House Bill 444
166:Baehr v. Miike
158:Baehr v. Lewin
154:
153:
149:
148:
125:
124:
120:
119:
115:
114:
109:
108:
104:
103:
96:
95:Judges sitting
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:Baehr v. Miike
78:Baehr v. Lewin
75:
71:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
40:
39:Full case name
36:
35:
30:
26:
25:
24:Baehr v. Miike
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
904:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
878:
875:
873:
870:
868:
865:
863:
860:
858:
855:
853:
850:
849:
847:
837:
834:
831:
828:
827:
815:
809:
805:
804:
796:
777:
770:
762:
756:
749:
745:
742:
737:
722:
721:
714:
698:
694:
687:
680:
675:
659:
658:
650:
643:
638:
631:
630:
624:
616:
610:
606:
601:
600:
591:
584:
583:0-684-82404-3
580:
576:
570:
555:
554:
549:
542:
534:
528:
524:
523:
515:
508:
496:
495:
490:
483:
479:
470:
467:
465:
462:
461:
455:
453:
446:
442:
439:
429:
426:
416:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
396:
395:
393:
383:
380:
378:
367:
365:
360:
356:
352:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
318:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
283:
278:
276:
271:
269:
264:
263:
258:
257:
254:
244:
243:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
215:
214:
211:
208:
207:
203:
202:
196:
189:
182:
175:
168:
167:
159:
156:
155:
151:
150:
144:
140:
139:
136:
135:
121:
116:
110:
107:Case opinions
105:
101:
97:
93:
88:
84:
79:
76:
74:Prior actions
72:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
41:
37:
34:
31:
27:
22:
19:
802:
795:
783:. Retrieved
769:
760:
755:
736:
725:, retrieved
719:
713:
701:. Retrieved
696:
686:
678:
674:
662:. Retrieved
656:
649:
641:
637:
628:
623:
598:
590:
574:
569:
557:. Retrieved
551:
541:
521:
514:
505:
498:. Retrieved
492:
482:
448:
444:
437:
435:
422:
413:
391:
389:
381:
373:
348:
330:
324:
314:
298:
297:(originally
293:
292:
291:
170:(1996, 1999)
165:
164:
157:
130:
82:
77:
69:Case history
42:
18:
500:February 5,
261:This box:
846:Categories
813:1401814530
785:October 9,
703:August 18,
697:The Nation
664:August 18,
532:0766833585
419:Resolution
321:Background
507:marriage.
335:Dan Foley
744:Archived
553:POLITICO
458:See also
118:Keywords
61:Citation
727:July 6,
559:June 4,
53:Decided
810:
611:
581:
529:
432:Impact
359:remand
198:(2013)
191:(2011)
184:(2009)
177:(1998)
161:(1993)
779:(PDF)
475:Notes
438:Baehr
386:Trial
315:Baehr
29:Court
808:ISBN
787:2012
729:2010
705:2010
666:2010
609:ISBN
605:25–7
579:ISBN
561:2021
527:ISBN
502:2015
281:edit
274:talk
267:view
585:, 4
848::
695:.
607:.
550:.
504:.
491:.
317:.
45:v.
816:.
789:.
707:.
668:.
617:.
563:.
535:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
