NOM BLOG

U.S. District Court in Hawaii Upholds State's Marriage Law

 

Alliance Defending Freedom scores another important legal victory for marriage:

"A federal court Wednesday upheld Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The court rejected a lawsuit that sought to tear down the state’s law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and Hawaii’s constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the power to maintain the timeless definition.

...In its order in Jackson v. Abercrombie, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii concluded, “Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…. It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”

“In this situation,” the court continued, “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii…. Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”

35 Comments

  1. J. M.
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Great decision! Hooray for Hawaii!

    Same Sex Marriage (SSM) was originally supported by feminist organizations such as NOW as a way to empower women to be more independent of men (achieving women's equality is important but there are always healthy and unhealthy ways to reach a goal). The support rose as radical subgroups of feminists grew which advocated that women should in a sense form their own separate tribe, living apart from men and even creating a future society where men could be cut off and eventually disappear because they were redundant and unnecessary as well as dangerous and violent.

    The support became so intense it led to irrational positions, leading some to equate grouping people by race with groupings by gender or even by sexual behaviors, ignoring that these groupings are fundamentally different in various ways (gender differences are from evolving together, and the sexual behaviors evolved with them, while racial differences are from evolving separately). Also ignored is that SSM reduces diversity in a family group, a type of diversity that has been fundamental in human evolution and survival. It is argued that it increases the diversity of family groups, but the KKK could argue similarly that it provides a greater diversity of groups by creating a group without diversity.

    The SSM movement has been able to grow so vigorously because economic/financial elites have supported it. Militant feminism merged with the left and came to dominate it, promoting lesbianism to the point that males feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the left, making it small and weak and incapable of any strong resistance. The economic/financial elites recognized this and so have heaped support on the SSM movement.

  2. Ash
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Great news! :)

    God bless ADF for their impressive legal work, and for their willingness to step in and defend the constitution of Hawaii after the governor refused to do so.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    “Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…."

    Exactly. Why is this difficult for some folks to understand? We don't want to sever the link between marriage, children, mothers and fathers.

    It's not hate, it's nature. People can live in whatever relationships they choose, but marriage is between a man and a woman (and the children they are likely to create).

  4. Andy King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    J.M.

    cool story bro.
    Could use some sources here and there, though.

  5. someguy
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    If this hadgone the other way, it would have been a national headline. But since marriage was upheld, virtual silence from the media...

  6. Fitz
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    J.M.

    Spot on.. Indeed feminism and homosexual "rights" are so essentially the same thing that it almost seems redundant.

    Radical feminism has always seen the elimination of gender distinctions from law as a primary goal. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed beliefs when she worked for the ACLU that single sex bathrooms & locker rooms should be eliminated, Mothers & Fathers day were wrong and should be eliminated, and single sex education should be forbidden.

    Many lesbians openly choose to be sexual with exclusively female as a show of solidarity with other woman rather than because of orientation... and freely & proudly admit this.

    (continued)

  7. Fitz
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    (continued)

    When the ERA (equal rights amendment) was passed through congress, woman like Phyllis Schlafly pointed out that this could be used to redefine marriage. She was routinely laughed at as an extremist who was using scare tactics and outrageous "slippery slope" arguments. While the Federal ERA never passed ratification, multiple state level ERA's did. Sure enough they have been used by multiple courts to support the redefinition of marriage. The Constitutional Scholar Eugene Volokh has written that if we had the ERA in our constitution, same-sex "marriage" would be properly the law of the land under it. The ERA was a feminist cause obviously.

    One of the better investigative journalist pieces would be about how feminists have disappeared in name and recognition sense this same-sex "marriage" debate has ensued. While their organizations are formally for it, they seek little press or advocacy for it. It strikes me as the classic leftist tactic of changing the name of your group in order to trick people into not realizing who's really behind it. Feminism doesn't need to be seen as radical as it really is if it is going to continue its battle on other fronts.

    Finally...let no one forget that the first case that imposed same-sex "marriage" on the public was the Baehr v. Lewin decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court. This was done on the basis of discrimination based on sex...not on homosexuality as a protected class. It is the more elegant and consistent legal reasoning. However, a decision was made that "sex" & "sexism" was a worn out cause and that homosexuality was now cultivated as a more sympathetic rational and more politically sailable.

  8. Fitz
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    (continued)

    When the ERA (equal rights amendment) was passed through congress, woman like Phyllis Schlafly
    pointed out that this could be used to redefine marriage. She was routinely laughed at as an extremist who was using scare tactics and outrageous "slippery slope" arguments. While the Federal ERA never passed ratification, multiple state level ERA's did. Sure enough they have been used by multiple courts to support the redefinition of marriage. The Constitutional Scholar Eugene Volokh has written that if we had the ERA in our constitution, same-sex "marriage" would be properly the law of the land under it. The ERA was a feminist cause obviously.

  9. Paul Mc
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Win some, lose some.

    It is good that the Court established govt legitimate interest. The job for ssm supporters is to persuade govts that marriage can do for same sex coupes and their children what it currently does for OS couples. That may take a long time but there is no denying that things are moving slowly forward on that front in favour of ssm.

  10. Michael Ejercito
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    A well-written decision, citing binding Supreme Court precedent. See Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L.E.2d 65 (1972)

    This could end up before the Supreme Court via certiorari before judgment, as the issue is already at its doorstep.

  11. Andy King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    @Fitz

    Your story, while slightly cooler because it's shorter, is still lacking anything resembling a source. Since this one is bite-size, however, it's not exhausting to fact-check.

    Googling "Ruth Bader Ginsburg Bathroom" and "Locker Room" brought me absolutely nothing suggesting she's even spoken about those matters, so your source would be appreciated.
    RBG -has- gone on record saying Mother's/Father's day should be replaced with Parents' Day, which you're free to make of what you will. But Parents' Day already exists, proposed by Republican senator Trent Lott. So while she supports Parents' Day, she by no means came up with the idea.
    Lastly, RBG actually wrote the Supreme Court ruling that single-sex education is constitutional, as long as courses and facilities are equal to both sexes.

    As for your "many lesbians" remark, feel free to actually name names. Weasel words don't help anyone.

  12. Zack
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    As my 1SGT always says "It's a beautiful thing".

  13. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    This is one of many 1st instance decisions slowly making their way to the SCOTUS. Some are pro-marriage equality, some are anti-marriage equality.

    Funny that when courts decide against marriage equality, NOM applauds. When courts or legislatures decide for marriage equality, NOM says it must be decided at the ballot box.

    NOM position = political expediency.

  14. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    And NOM remains silent when courts rule that NOM has violated electoral laws that require full disclosure of donors. Disclosure is the only way transparency of the political process can be ensured.

  15. Randy E King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    @Claude,

    NOM applauded well rezoned court findings that are squarely based on standing court precedence; while lambasting those courts that willfully ignore binding court precedence in an obvious attempt to persuade the highest court to follow their lead on this.

    Why aren’t you attacking the court for recognizing Baker v. Nelson?

    The Saul Alinsky tactics you fall back on are looking quite stale and moldy at this stage of the game. Are you afraid that if the U.S. fights off the push for marriage corruption the opposition in Canada will unite and reverse the wrongs you perpetrated against your society?

  16. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    "The job for ssm supporters is to persuade govts that marriage can do for same sex coupes and their children what it currently does for OS couples. That may take a long time but there is no denying that things are moving slowly forward on that front in favour of ssm."

    And this is where the problem lies: the question isn't "what can marriage do for same sex couples that it can do for opposite-sex couples," the question is, what can same-sex couples do for marriage and society? Individual citizens plug themselves into marriage--they don't conform marriage to fit their private agenda. Marriage is opposite-sexed because only opposite-sexed couples can both make new citizens and provide them with a mother and father. SS couples can't do that for marriage, or for society, so society has no vested interest in labeling them as married couples. Otherwise, lots of pairings or parties could claim that marriage benefits could "do things" for them, such as polygamous gropus, polyamorous groups, siblings, etc.

  17. Zack
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @Claude

    "When courts or legislatures decide for marriage equality, NOM says it must be decided at the ballot box."

    Exactly. That's what people on either side of the argument do. Your "epiphany" isn't enlightening but rather stating the obvious.

    The court upheld thousands of years of human history but I suppose they're being activist because they rightly concluded the Constution doesn't grant special rights.

    The constitution isn't a living document.

  18. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    It's an interesting observation that marriage supporters at this blog make comments about what's best for society, what's best for children, what's best for the future of our country, while the opposition makes comments about what's best for their personal interests, what kinds of handouts can they get from their government.

  19. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Zack, if the Constitution is not a living document, how do you explain the 27 ratified amendments? Also, why is NOM proposing a Constitutional amendment on marriage if the document is static?

  20. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    No Barb, I'm claiming no such thing. I support the rights, obligations, responsibilities, benefits, costs, and societal good that comes in extending marriage to same sex couples. My 25 year same-sex relationship, now recognized as a bona fide marriage, is proof positive. Your side is the one only focusing on sex and benefits only.

  21. Randy E King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    @Claude,

    The twenty-seven ratified amendments each compliment the other by expanding and clarifying intent; with none of the Amendments given the power to supersede those that preceded them.

    For example; freedom of religion is an absolute that is afforded Strict Scrutiny protection; which means that an activity afforded Rational Basis consideration cannot be afforded sway at the expense of. To really drive this point home you must understand that the freedom of religion is held in higher regard than race and gender under our Constitution.

    The founding fathers could see you coming from over two hundred years away.

  22. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    SSM doesn't simply extend marriage benefits to some SS couples, it guts it, redefines it, and removes the most compelling rationale for it, which is to unite two human beings of the opposite sex, regulate sexual behavior, and provide new citizens with their own mother and father. SSM is a counterfeit, hollowed out remnant of the original.

  23. Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Thank God.

    We now have a great case, citing binding SCOTUS precedent, and as Fitz says above this one could go straight to SCOTUS.

    It's a good day :-)

  24. stephanos
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    What same-sex "marriage' has done to Massachusetts
    The article that is waking up America. Most people don't know what really happens. Updated for 2012.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/intro.html

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

  25. John B.
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Not that big a victory; all your side has managed to do is maintain the status quo. Of course the blurb omits the best part:

    “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” [i.e., not through the courts].

    So they're leaving the door open for the legislature to decide the issue. Of course the minute a state legislature --the elected representatives of the people--actually does approve same-sex marriage, NOM and their allies are all too happy to turn to the courts to attempt to overturn it, as they already have (albeit unsuccessfully) in the District of Columbia and more recently in New York.

    But I do have to wonder: if the residents of some state, somewhere, someday, do finally approve of same-sex marriage by a popular vote, will NOM finally stop opposing same-sex marriage in that state? Will NOM live up to their "let the people vote" mantra (never mind that people vote all the time for their elected representatives) and accept the people's will? Somehow I doubt it, given NOM's support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage (and which amendment, it should be noted, would not be subject to a popular vote!).

  26. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Of course not, John B. we'll educate the voting public as to the inherent damages of SSM, & take another vote. :) The truth will set us free.

  27. Lonesomerhoades
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    Furthermore, it must be stated and restated that man was made for woman and woman made for man. Nature therefore tells us that homosexual acting out is aberrant behavior.

  28. Dan
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    >>Furthermore, it must be stated and restated that man was made for woman and woman made for man. Nature therefore tells us that homosexual acting out is aberrant behavior.

    Yes, one would think we wouldn't need to state the obvious, but unfortunately we live in a world where even the most obvious truths are often rejected..

  29. gerbil
    Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    militant gays are asking for war o. 2/3 rds of the planet. The majority of the humn race will NEVER accept your demented lifestyle ever. Keep pushing and destroying the U.S. with your sick minds, the next superpowe should the U.S. disappear, will NOT give you gays ANY rights! Many countries would shoot the militant gays for their tyrranical and hateful agenda. Rich gays should just buy an island and leave the country!

  30. russell
    Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    The court has come out and said that heterosexual people are stupid. With the statement " ...It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”
    With that "logic" the courts are saying that all red blooded heterosexuals will no longer be able to maintain their own marriages, will forget how to procreated and forget what a family structure is. That's a lot of power that gays wield over heterosexuals... amazing.

  31. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 10, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    We live in a country where homosexual special rights advocates declare that reality is *not* what we have always known it to be, even with the most obvious truths.

    If this special interest group can repeat it often enough, some people will believe it.

    Their campaign is based primarily on spin and soundbites.

    Their unsophisticated debate content belies a political sophistication -- because Joe Sixpack only overhears spin and soundbites (while focusing on self interest).

    They just go with whatever resonates. That's what works.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-06/gay-marriage-commitment-campaign/51098348/1

  32. Mikhail
    Posted August 11, 2012 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    They lost in Hawaii in 1998, they lost in 2010, they SHOULD have lost in 2011 but unfortunately they had a Dem Governor who signed "Civil unions" into law, but ultimately they lost in their final goal to redefine marriage. Lets all say an ALOHA FOR MARRIAGE!

  33. Claude
    Posted August 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Mikhail's comment is yet another demonstration that your movement is not to protect "marriage", but to deny any legal status to same-sex couples and family units. You begrudge us civil unions, as does your fearless leader Brian Brown.

    Are you pro-marriage, or anti-recognition that same-sex relationships deserve legal recognition and protection?

  34. Posted August 12, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Claude:

    Both. Same-sex relationships deserve no more legal recognition than the relationship I have with my best (male) friend. (I'm straight.)

  35. leehawks
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Claude, your side put the stake in the heart of civil unions by never being satisfied with them. Once you had them someone immediately sued for "equal treatment" to get real marriage. Civil unions are a trojan horse so therefore you get nothing.