December 1996: Baehr wins again

In December of 1996, in a lengthy, detailed decision, the lower court judge in Baehr addresses numerous issues. While acknowledging that “traditional marriage” does not include same-sex couples, he concludes that tradition is neither legally meaningful nor would it be harmed.

Ninia Baehr and Genora Dancel

It’s alleged that the State’s finances would be damaged by allowing same-sex couples to marry, and that if such marriages are allowed, the State and the citizens of Hawaii will be harmed because those marriages won’t be recognized by other states or the federal government. It’s alleged that allowing people like Ninia and Genora to marry will harm children, and that the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation.

The judge rules that the State has failed to prove any of those things. In his ruling, he writes,

“[P]eople marry for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to the following: having or raising children; stability and commitment; personal closeness; intimacy and monogamy; the establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship; personal significance; recognition by society; and certain legal and economic protections, benefits and obligations. In Hawaii, and elsewhere, gay men and lesbian women share this same mix of reasons for wanting to be able to marry.”

He rules that the marriage restriction fails to provide equal protection of the laws as mandated by the Hawaii constitution.

However, rather than providing an immediate remedy and allowing access to marriage, the judge stays his ruling and gives the State the chance to appeal – which, of course, it does.

Timeline key: progress (green), no progress (red), pending court cases (purple),
events that are neutral, not directly related, or with both positive and negative effects (black)