Gay pride

Discrimination Against Gays

By kbishop
  • Case was Initiated

    Case was Initiated
    Three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hawaii Department of Health. The three couples met the requirements of the state law that detailed 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 under the United States Constitution the right to marry is fundamental, but only for different-sex couples.
  • Period: to

    Baehr v. Miike

  • Supreme Court Decison

    Supreme Court Decison
    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 that required justification by the state that the state needed to justify under the standard known as strict scrutiny.
  • Federal Defense of Marragie Act gets involved

    Federal Defense of Marragie Act gets involved
    Judge Kevin S.C. Chang conducted the trial in the case of Baehr v. Miike, with the name of the new State Director of Health, Lawrence H. Miike, replacing that of his predecessor. Hawaii put forth five state interests it claimed were sufficiently "compelling" to allow it to bar same-sex couples from marrying.
  • Passage of amendment to the state constitution

    Passage of amendment to the state constitution
    As the case moved through the state courts, the passage of an amendment to the state constitution in 1998 led to the dismissal of the case in 1999.
  • Dismissal of the case

    Dismissal of the case
    On December 9, 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled that the marriage amendment removed the plaintiffs' legal objections to the state's eligibility requirements for marriage and definition of marriage. The Court reversed Chang's ruling and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.