Baehr v. Miike
Encyclopedia
Baehr v. Miike 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.
. 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."
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.
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. The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal.
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.
Constitution of Hawaii
The Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi refers to various legal documents throughout the history of the Hawaiian Islands that defined the fundamental principles of authority and governance within its sphere of jurisdiction. Numerous constitutions have been promulgated for the Kingdom of Hawaii,...
. 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
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
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
Mootness
In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law...
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.
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. 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 scrutinyStrict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or...
. 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."
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
Domestic partnership
A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor a civil union...
act to be open to couples of any sex composition.
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:- That the State has a compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of children and other persons.
- That the State has a compelling interest in fostering procreation within a marital setting.
- That the State has a compelling interest in securing or assuring recognition of Hawaii marriages in other jurisdictions.
- 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.
- 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. The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal.
Amendment 2
On November 3, 1998, Hawaii voters approved Amendment 2 by a margin of 69.2–28.6%. The amendment read: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." On December 9, 1999, the state Supreme Court, taking judicial noticeJudicial notice
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to have the fact at issue determined by the court...
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.
See also
- Recognition of same-sex unions in HawaiiRecognition of same-sex unions in HawaiiThe U.S. state of Hawaii currently recognizes same-sex couples in reciprocal beneficiary relationships, which provide limited rights and benefits. Civil unions that provide benefits similar to marriage were legalized in 2011, and will become available in 2012...
- Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii
- Young v. Lingle - a lawsuit seeking the benefits of marriage for same-sex Hawaiian couples regardless of the same-sex marriage ban.