Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 8 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Federal judge hears legal arguments on same-sex marriage

By Ken Kobayashi


Senior U.S. Judge Alan Kay heard arguments for more than two hours today, and will decide later whether Hawaii laws reserving marriage between a man and woman violate the U.S. Constitution.

A lesbian couple and a gay man filed a lawsuit last year contending the laws violate constitutional provisions of due process and equal protection.

The case featured an unusual twist with two teams of Attorney General David Louie’s office representing opposing positions of Gov. Neil Abercrombie and his Health Director, Loretta Fuddy, respectively.

Abercrombie’s legal team agreed with the plaintiffs that the laws violate the Constitution while Fuddy’s team defended the laws.

Kay earlier permitted the Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, to join in the case and defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriages.

Honolulu attorney John D’Amato represented plaintiffs Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, who were denied a marriage license here, and Gary Bradley.

They filed the federal lawsuit in December.

Both sides asked Kay to immediately rule in their favor, arguing that a trial is not necessary because there are not disputed factual issues.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 8 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Denominator wrote:
What's the point in defining any relationships if all relationships are supposed to be "equal" under the law. If that were ever the case, there would be no point at all in the law distinguishing any relationships. Many of us don't have any concerns about gay couples doing whatever they want - except we don't consider their relationships to be marriages. Marriage is a word that defines a relationship between a man and women - the word doesn't deny equal protection. Hawaii allows partnerships between gays. If that partnership law needs to be modified, that's ok, modify it. If gay couples are declared married couples, then we will have to require that one of them be called "Mr" and the other "Mrs."
on July 24,2012 | 03:09PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
I hate it when a group of people decides what the rest have to abide by when it comes to the legal term of marriage. I for one am not gay but it makes me ashamed of my fellow man who uses religion to argue against something that has nothing to do with him personally. Let the gays marry. This is the United States, not China.
on July 24,2012 | 04:05PM
8082062424 wrote:
I think most have a problem that marriage is going to redefine for a certain group. marriage is as old as dirt it been around from the start. i think give them all the rights and protection under the law just give it another name. it not all about religion folks who have no faith object to marriage being redefined
on July 24,2012 | 04:52PM
ejkorvette wrote:
Gay, Lesbian, Transexual/Transgender, Bisexual...When does it End? If a person wants to marry their Pet(which is not so far fetched as it may sound) are the Laws Changed to fit their desires? Why does this Issue have to be "Forced Fed" ? Does the Non-Heterosexual Population want their marriage to be recognized as a marriage or do they want Benefits for their Partners? Doesn't Life Insurance, Living Will, and Personal Medical/Dental Insurance for the Individual serve its purpose already?
on July 24,2012 | 05:34PM
64hoo wrote:
last year the gay and lesbians got what they wanted a domestic partnership now they want to go a step further and want gay marriage seems like the gay community liked and let it go. then comes along two or three ilks want a gay marriage well lets hope the judge by the ruling that we voted on back in the 80s or90s that marriage shall be between man and woman. they already got domestic partnership so they should just let it go. i have feeling these people are from the mainland if they just go back to other states that have gay marriage then eveyone will be happy.
on July 24,2012 | 05:46PM
JevSv538 wrote:
People say that couples in civil unions receive the SAME rights as married couples..... that is incorrect. Please learn the difference: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html
on July 24,2012 | 08:44PM
hawaiikone wrote:
It would be interesting to see the comments that would be posted by our founding fathers in a forum like this. They'd probably be pleasantly surprised to learn about the ending of slavery, and rights for women. They'd be amazed at our federal government, it's size and power. But I think they'd be shocked and angry to see the removal of God from our lives, the stripping of references to His blessings and guidance for our nation. And shocked to see judges debating the correctness of homosexual marriage. Just wondering what they'd think about how we've put so many words in their mouths as the generations have come and gone. Maybe they'd think is was all for the better. Somehow I don't think so.
on July 24,2012 | 09:11PM
Ronin006 wrote:
We, the people, should have the right to make our own laws. We, the people, should have the right to make laws regarding marriage, laws that say parents cannot marry their children, brothers cannot marry their sisters, children under age 16 or such cannot marry, no one can be married to more than one person at the same time, no one can marry an animal, and, yes, people of the same sex cannot marry. Once made, laws need to be applied equally to everyone, and as long as that is done, there is no violation of equal protection clause of the Constitution.
on July 25,2012 | 02:48AM
Breaking News
Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout

Wassup Wit Dat!
Can You Spock ‘Em?

Warrior Beat
Meal plan