This same issue surfaced again five years ago in Hawaii in a case referred to as Baehr vs. Miike. Unlike the final decisions in Minnesota and Washington, our Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that Hawaii marriage laws discriminated against gay and lesbian couples and that unless the state can "show a compelling state interest" to justify this discrimination, the court will order the state Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
I'm sorry that my vote against the constitutional amendment bill was interpreted by many as favoring same-sex marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sen. Richard M. Matsuura
According to constitutional lawyers, the state of Hawaii has no chance at all of winning the Baehr vs. Miike case, which began in Circuit Court this week. Had the Hawaii Supreme Court justices placed a lower standard such as "intermediate level," rather than the "compelling reason" standard, the state could easily win its case and continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
So, because the court's decision declared that marriage is an equal rights issue, the same-sex marriage question was thrust upon us, and the state Legislature was given the task of solving this dilemma. As the public is well aware, it consumed much time during the 1996 legislative session and drew much publicity. And, in the end, the Legislature failed in its attempt to settle the matter.
There were two issues that needed to be resolved simultaneously in the Senate before any constitutional amendment legislation banning same-sex marriage could have been passed. The first was that marriage is only between a man and women, or a couple of opposite sexes. The second was that no citizen, gay, lesbian or otherwise, would be denied equal rights under our state Constitution.
Several amendments to the House bill (HB 3347) had been proposed and rejected. The final Senate proposal to HB 3347, which I helped draft, would have addressed both issues. It read as follows: "A provision in a statute which provides for the issuance of marriage licenses solely to couples of the opposite sex shall be interpreted as consistent with all of the rights protected by this Constitution; provided that governmental benefits and obligations will be allocated to all on an equal basis."
The simple sentence in this final Senate draft, "provided that governmental benefits and obligations will be allocated to all on an equal basis," would have satisfied the legal requirements set by the Hawaii Supreme Court, according to a professor of constitutional law at the University of Hawaii who helped draft this amendment.
However, HB 3347, unfortunately, fell victim to the internal workings of the Legislature. It was rejected by the House conferees in spite of the fact that all of the Senate conferees signed in favor of it.
This left only the constitutional amendment bill (HB 2366), which was yanked from the Senate Judiciary Committee to be voted upon by the Senate in the last days of the session. This bill provided that marriage licenses be issued to couples of the opposite sex. It did not - I repeat, did not - address the equal-rights issues to satisfy the Supreme Court ruling in 1993.
This bill needed 17 votes to be placed on the November ballot. It received only 10 votes because it addressed only the first issue; I, along with 14 other senators, voted against it. It did not solve the complete issue. The equal-rights issue would have resurfaced in a court of law.
I am sorry that my vote against the constitutional amendment bill (HB 2366) was interpreted by many as favoring same-sex marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth.
However, as a legislator, I felt I had to address the equal-rights issue as mandated by the Hawaii Supreme Court. We must get both issues on the ballot for a constitutional amendment. Passing the amended HB 3347 would have done it!