- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Federal Court Refuses to Legalize Gay Marriage in Hawaii
HONOLULU (BP) -- A federal court has refused to legalize gay marriage in Hawaii, ruling the issue is best addressed by the legislature and that the current law -- which defines marriage as between a man and a woman -- does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling by Judge Alan. C. Kay Wednesday (Aug. 8) broke a string of court losses by traditionalists on the subject of gay marriage.
At issue in Hawaii was a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1998 giving the legislature the power to define marriage in the traditional sense, which legislators subsequently did.
A lesbian couple and a gay man filed suit in federal court last year against Hawaii officials, arguing the amendment and law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. But Kay, nominated by President Reagan, ruled the legislature had a rational interest defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
"Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing," Kay wrote in his 117-page decision. "... The legislature could rationally conclude that on a societal level, the institution of marriage acts to reinforce 'the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other.'"
The legislature, Kay wrote, could "also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex."
"Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents' evidence," he wrote of parenting. "Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient."
The issue, Kay added, is up to the legislature.
"In this situation, to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage 'would short-circuit' the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii," he wrote.
The ruling will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, generally considered one of the most liberal courts in the nation.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represented the Hawaii Family Forum in defending the law. Hawaii Family Forum was allowed to intervene after Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, refused to defend the law in court.
"This ruling affirms that protecting and strengthening marriage as the union of one man and one woman is legitimate, reasonable, and good for society," ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt said in a statement. "The people of Hawaii adopted a constitutional amendment to uphold marriage, and the court rightly concluded that the democratic process shouldn't be short-circuited by judicial decree."
The case eventually could have a major impact on the nation because 30 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman. However, the California Prop 8 case -- which also involves a constitutional amendment -- is further along in the court system and could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. Supporters of Prop 8 appealed their case to the high court in late July.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter























Comments
I think eventually we will
I think eventually we will get gay marriage, but the proper way to do that is via a Constitutional amendment. Reflecting changing times and values is what the amendment process is for.
> the legislature had a
> the legislature had a rational interest defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I'm really curious as to what this "rational interest" is - he doesn't explain what benefit the state receives from withholding human rights from an entire class of people, he just leaves it to beg the question.
> "Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing," Kay wrote in his 117-page decision. "... The legislature could rationally conclude that on a societal level, the institution of marriage acts to reinforce 'the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other.'"
Does anyone really need an institution like marriage to reinforce the link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation? I'll agree that a lot of history and a lot of societies have used marriage, but not for the exclusively and not in all societies. Because something happens a lot doesn't mean it should become a legal constraint that everyone is saddled with.
It really looks like Kay is trying really hard to not look like he's injecting his religious beliefs into the decision whilst injecting his silly religious beliefs into his decision.
I also think we need to stop giving people tax breaks for getting married - it's not like anyone needs any additional incentive to have kids these days (a patently false motivation if I've ever heard one), since biology is the one and only motivation anyone has ever needed to procreate. It's laughable that being married makes anyone a better parent, either.
The Hawaii Family Forum was convicted in 2010 of violating lobbying laws in that state, and portray themselves as the voice of the catholic church.
So, are we saying that a
So, are we saying that a sterile couple can't be allowed to marry? What about a very old couple, should they love each other. If a woman, has a hysterectomy....she's fucked? she can't ever marry? If a man has his tubes permanently tied or cut completely..is he fucked too?
While I am straight married white man, this hypocritical bullshit, where the Far extreme radical right, who claims to uphold the Constitution as their Tome of All liberties, but states that Equal Protection is equal protection. The Far Radical Right also claims vehemently as angry bitches and cavemen in the streets beating on their bongs on shit..that the government should stay out of their lives......
Is the government only supposed to stay out of THEIR lives...and not other people's lives...unless it sanctimoniously serves them?
Where I come from...that's called hypocrisy.
It doesn't matter if it gay rights, or abortion, which I'm against, but wouldn't force my views on another couple, because it's none of my business what goes on in someone else's bedroom.
Why do republicans want to know what is going on in everyone else's bedroom but not their's? Why do they feel that the government should be in gay people's lives....but not their's?
This is one of many things that irritate Americans about the GOP. They are out and out two-faced crying, whining hypocrites. The GOP needs to stay out of people's bedrooms..unless they want the liberal media in THEIR bedrooms!
Semper Fi