Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 16, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 127 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Federal judge upholds Hawaii ban on same-sex marriage

By Ken Kobayashi

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 04:25 p.m. HST, Aug 08, 2012


Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld today Hawaii laws banning same-sex marriages.

The judge issued a 117-page decision which throws out the lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and a gay man who contended the state laws violate the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection provisions.

Kay ruled in favor of state Health Director Loretta Fuddy and the Hawaii Family Forum, and against the three plaintiffs and Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who contended the law violated the Constitution.

Hawaii’s marriage laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman “are not unconstitutional,” Kay said.

“Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue,” he said. 

“If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.”

Abercrombie said he “respectfully” disagrees and will join in an appeal of the ruling.

“To refuse individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation or gender is discrimination in light of our civil unions law,” he said.

“For me this is about fairness and equality.” 

John D’Amato, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, who were denied a marriage license here, and by Gary Bradley, against Abercrombie and Fuddy.

Abercrombie, however, agreed that the law violated the constitutional protections, which resulted Attorney General David Louie’s office providing one team to represent the governor and another representing Fuddy, who defended the marriage laws.

Kay earlier allowed the Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, to intervene in the case and defend the laws.

He heard more than two hours of arguments in the case on July 24.

In his decision, Kay granted requests by Fuddy and the forum to immediately rule in their favor without the case going to trial. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling declaring the marriage laws unconstitutional.

US. District Court ruling on same sex marriage







 Print   Email   Comment | View 127 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(127)
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.
Manoa_Hawaiian wrote:
With all due respect for Judge Kay, he is a conservative Christian.
on August 8,2012 | 11:29AM
Denominator wrote:
And the judge in SF that ruled in favor of same sex marriage is gay. So what?
on August 8,2012 | 11:33AM
Highinthesierras wrote:
Whatever, there is no US Constitional provision concerning marriage. Therefore, it is up to each state. So, let the folks vote and move on.
on August 8,2012 | 03:15PM
walaau808 wrote:
Already done! How often does the vote need to be taken?
on August 8,2012 | 03:38PM
3012708737 wrote:
Until gays can marry and enjoy the same rights as others.
on August 8,2012 | 06:27PM
Mana07 wrote:
Have you been lost in the High Sierras? Or just "high"? This issue has been voted on. And guess what? A marriage is between a man and a woman.
on August 8,2012 | 03:48PM
kailuabred wrote:
The south in the early 1900's would have voted against anything that had to do with black people. A majority vote to deny people their rights does not pass constitutional muster.
on August 10,2012 | 04:19AM
kailuabred wrote:
The point is that religion should be seperate from public policy. If he used religion as a basis for the decision or let it influence him, it is incorrect. Ever heard of the seperation of church and state?
on August 10,2012 | 04:17AM
JPG wrote:
It figures!
on August 8,2012 | 01:55PM
Ronin006 wrote:
If a person engages in unspeakable acts with an animal, most reasonable people would say they are sick mentally and need psychiatric help. So why is it that when the same acts are performed between humans, liberals call it love and justification for marriage? That is sick, really sick.
on August 8,2012 | 03:06PM
walaau808 wrote:
With the way some people treat their pets (as members of the family) there will eventually be someone who wants to marry their pet...then what do we do? You already have those who leave all their belongings to the family pet when they pass...
on August 8,2012 | 03:40PM
Anonymous wrote:
Ronin006, those same acts you unspeakable perform with your wife or girlfriend, sick, really sick.
on August 8,2012 | 05:34PM
serfboy wrote:
GET PAST THE SEX! Marriage isn't about sex. It's about a commitment of love for another person.
on August 8,2012 | 07:51PM
soundofreason wrote:
Oh so THAT'S your definition. Well then - that's a bit of good nuew cause I've got a real good lookin' sister I've had my eyes on for some time now :/
on August 8,2012 | 08:42PM
kailuabred wrote:
You're not very bright if you can't see the distinction. You need to change your screen name.
on August 10,2012 | 04:22AM
EducatedLocalBoy wrote:
I hate to burst Ronin006's bubble, but much to the shock of everyone, the current conservative U.S. Supreme Court reversed a prior decision of a the Supreme Court, and ruled that it was unconstitutional to make illegal what Ronin006 calls "unspeakable acts" that are performed between humans. That said, the issue of same sex marriage is a complex one. Normally, what Judge Kay ruled is correct, but just as with the natural human tendency of the majority to discriminate against the minority, say for example the majority race to discriminate against the minority race, the normal process may not work fairly thus requiring judicial intervention to protect the minority from the unfair biases of the majority.
on August 8,2012 | 10:19PM
kailuabred wrote:
Are you that ignorant? Or is that your religion talking? Never mind...same thing.
on August 10,2012 | 04:21AM
allie wrote:
Yikes! Maybe we can just be happy with civil unions? Marriage is an issue for the churches anyway
on August 8,2012 | 11:30AM
Fred01 wrote:
Yes, government needs to get out of the marriage business, not expand it. BAN MARRIAGE!
on August 8,2012 | 03:09PM
bubbaButt wrote:
You give these GLBT freaks an inch, they want to take a MILE!
on August 8,2012 | 06:10PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
You need to seek professional help!
on August 8,2012 | 06:26PM
3012708737 wrote:
No, just the same rights as others. Not "special rights," mind you, just the same rights as others.
on August 8,2012 | 06:28PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Oh really because last time I checked it was the STATE that issued marriage licenses.
on August 8,2012 | 06:26PM
EducatedLocalBoy wrote:
Unfortunately marriage is not an issue just for churches. The law has stuck its nose into marriage for centuries starting with banning a man and a woman of different races from marrying. It took until 1968 before that ban was found to be unconstitutional. HBO recently did an in depth human account of the actual couple involved in that case. That is a situation where, as I mentioned above, the normal processes of "majority rule" were not fairly applied thus warranting judicial intervention to allow two upstanding citizens a black woman and a white man, who knew each other since childhood, and truly loved each other, get married.
on August 8,2012 | 10:37PM
kainalu wrote:
Ignorant intolerance is alive and well in the chambers of Judge Alan Kay.
on August 8,2012 | 11:38AM
8082062424 wrote:
why stoop to name calling.
on August 8,2012 | 11:57AM
kainalu wrote:
Name calling? lol "Intolerance" born from "ignorance" - no name calling.
on August 8,2012 | 07:43PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
Even though the law and a majority of the people in Hawai`i believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, a majority of those same people believe in equal rights for all. Two homosexuals living together in a civil union have the same rights as two people of opposite sex who are married. Seems fair to most.
on August 8,2012 | 01:41PM
kuewa wrote:
Not true. Civil unions do not bestow Federal tax benefits or inheritance rights, are not transferable from one State to another, and do not include rights child adoption, etc. The conservative argument is based on religious and personal moral beliefs. However, the issue before the courts is regarding legal recognition of partnership, regardless of whether your partner is same or opposite sex.
on August 8,2012 | 01:47PM
serious wrote:
Yes, you are correct. Health issues also. It is complicated. Boy Scouts next? I see our President who is the head of the Boy Scouts doesn't like their decision on gay rights--how do you give a scout executive order for one who has never served??? I meant as a Scout not a gay!!!! (I think.)
on August 8,2012 | 01:56PM
walaau808 wrote:
The President is the head of the Boy Scouts? Since when?
on August 8,2012 | 03:24PM
kailuabred wrote:
Every US President serves as the honary president of the Boy Scouts. Do some research before posting.
on August 10,2012 | 04:25AM
JPG wrote:
THATS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on August 8,2012 | 01:57PM
Denominator wrote:
The question is whether the legislatures can legally differentiate. Can legislatures make laws that encourage opposite sex relationships? Kay says they can if the legislatures believe that different sex relationships are beneficial to the public good. They don't have to be correct (they are often wrong about nearly everything), they just have to believe. It's like deciding the government can condemn land and force you to sell if it is for the public good - it may be a bad idea but it is legal. Legislators can decide that its in the public interest to encourage people to have babies and give tax breaks to those who do or just those that can. Since gays can't they don't qualify for the tax breaks. We don't all qualify for all the tax breaks that exist but that doesn't make them unconstitutional. How would any law know if a person was gay? All you have to do to be gay is say you are gay, right? There is not test and there is no proof. So how can you discriminate against that?
on August 8,2012 | 03:38PM
3012708737 wrote:
As kueva wrote, civil unions do not bestow the same rights as two people of opposite sex who are married. Someone in a civil union has no right to be considered as a spouse and can therefore be deported without recourse if they are not a U.S. citizen. One or more parents in a civil union may not have the right to pick up their child at school or interact with the school system unless special arrangements are made with a cooperating school system. The same goes for medical care for the child. In many places--even in this country, a partner in a civil union can be denied the right to make medical decisions for their partner, or even to visit them in the hospital. In most states, the partner in a civil union cannot take custody of their partner's body after death--only "family" has this right. These are all things that may not even be surmountable by hiring an expensive lawyer and making civil contracts. Even in states that allow for civil unions, many "special rights" that heterosexual couples enjoy can only be gained by paying a lot of money to make contracts, proxies, and wills (which a judge like this could toss out anyway).
on August 8,2012 | 06:36PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Bet you supported separate but equal in schools too! If you all support marriage so much where was your outrage when the Kardashian used her marriage to make money? Hypocrite much?
on August 8,2012 | 07:30PM
justin_thyme wrote:
WRONG. Partners in civil unions are treated unequally in comparison with legally-married couples in matters of taxation, adoption, and intestate inheritance, for example. There is no substitute for marriage! Denying same-gender couples the right to marry is discrimination and a violation of human rights. Anyone who says otherwise is not just ignorant, but bigoted, too.
on August 8,2012 | 07:47PM
JPG wrote:
AMEN to that!!
on August 8,2012 | 01:56PM
Changalang wrote:
Marriage equality? Hello?
on August 8,2012 | 11:42AM
egghead wrote:
I thought that was the whole point about the courts.....to check the democratic process and step in when the majority has taken rights away from the minority. My suggestion.....the state only issue civil unions licenses. Let the churches fight among themselves over "marriage".
on August 8,2012 | 11:44AM
serfboy wrote:
I thought the same thing. Talk about punting the football.I also agree with you about the state issuing only licenses. Separation of Church and State.
on August 8,2012 | 07:57PM
WKAMA wrote:
If gays want to unite call it something else. Don't call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it should be.
on August 8,2012 | 11:47AM
8082062424 wrote:
I agree. Give them all the rights and protections under the law same as married couples just give it another name. And all of this fuss will die down. To redefine marriage for one special group just going to get every one up in a fuss. Marriage is as old as dirt and been around since the start
on August 8,2012 | 11:56AM
hi5ho wrote:
Actually, throughout history, marriage was between a man and many women. Just want to point that out. And actually, throughout the world, that is still a common practice. So, basically, you're wrong.
on August 8,2012 | 12:11PM
copperwire9 wrote:
Absolutely true.
on August 8,2012 | 12:45PM
8082062424 wrote:
true as that may be it still a man and women
on August 8,2012 | 01:05PM
serfboy wrote:
Why isn't it true for 1 wife with many husbands as well?
on August 8,2012 | 07:59PM
JPG wrote:
Yes and throught history colored people used to be slaves so whats your point about history. The bible says men are to stone their women for not behaving. Why is the one issue always picked upon when there are so many in the bible for you to choose from? Wake up and smell the coffee !
on August 8,2012 | 02:06PM
Denominator wrote:
Whites were slaves too. Christians were slaves to the Romans. What's the bible got to do with this?
on August 8,2012 | 03:41PM
pastormatt wrote:
Yes, and the Bible also says, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. You can pick and choose particular Bible passages to fit your agenda but the fact is that you need to actually believe and understand the Bible in its entirety instead of just taking snipets from instances that suit your needs. But on your actual point, gays are not subjugated to be slaves, no one is being actively oppressed or having anything taken away. This has been a manufactured argument to get across a political viewpoint of a few and to push a particular ideology to redefine people solely on one's sexual feelings. Where there are obvious differences and divisions of gender, race, height, weight, this is to add another qualifying characteristic of one's feelings toward a particular form of relationship. It imposes an expectation upon children and adults that should not be forced or manipulated that everyone must be a sexual being and make some ambiguous distinction publicly to solidify its veracity. Wake up and smell the coffee!
on August 8,2012 | 03:52PM
kailuabred wrote:
If you're actually a pastor, maybe you need to educate yourself a bit more. Gays don't have the same rights as others.
on August 10,2012 | 04:29AM
JPG wrote:
Thats true Gay unions deserve an even better name for it than marriage that way the gays and both the ignorant haters can all be happy Besides even straight people cannot seem to stay ni a marriage these days , just look at the statistics. Maybe if they focused on their own relationships instead of wasting their time judging others the straight divorce rate would go down - NOT. Peace to the world!
on August 8,2012 | 02:01PM
walaau808 wrote:
Statistically speaking, what is the percentage of gay couples that stay together and for what period of time? Gay, straight, all relationships have issues, and some relationships dissolve because of it. Your point is?
on August 8,2012 | 03:27PM
8082062424 wrote:
Give it a different name with all the rights and protections under the law and this issue would die down. when you try to redefine some thing that been around as long as marriage has people are not going to like it.
on August 8,2012 | 03:51PM
kukui_nut wrote:
How about something that sounds like "marriage." Like "mirage" for instance.
on August 8,2012 | 06:55PM
onwardupward wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 8,2012 | 03:54PM
8082062424 wrote:
I did not bring the bible into this. This is about a sexual life style. Right now they have the same right as any other person to marriage . They want it changed to fit there life style. Marriage as been around from the start it as old as dirt. To redefine what it is for one special group is a bit much.What is wrong with giving them the same rights and protections under the law as married folks just give it another name? that way you be putting in something new to fit there lifestyle and not trying to redefine something that been around forever. Fact is this issue will not die away there will always be gay folks and there will always be folks for what ever reason think this lifestyle not normal that will never change. this is going to be a battle that will keep going and both sides will fuel it. The other side is tired of it being shoved in there face just look what happen with Chik-Fil-A.
on August 8,2012 | 04:36PM
serfboy wrote:
FORGET ABOUT THE SEX ALREADY! Marriage isn't just about sex! My parents have been married for 56 years and they don't have sex. But they are still married. Why? BECAUSE MARRIAGE ISN'T JUST ABOUT SEX!
on August 8,2012 | 08:05PM
soundofreason wrote:
Maybe they're just refraining from producing any more people with your point of view.......because of your point of view. Thank them for me.
on August 8,2012 | 08:47PM
EducatedLocalBoy wrote:
Soundofreason, your comments above are pretty nasty, insulting and uncalled for. I am heterosexual, sexually active, happily married, and not convinced that same sex marriage is right. However, Soundofreason you don't have to be so nasty to serfboy to get across your point of view. Shame on you.
on August 8,2012 | 10:49PM
EducatedLocalBoy wrote:
Serfboy, I assume that the reason why your parents stay married even though there are no longer any "domestic relations" is because they love each other and have so many wonderful shared times and experiences they want to be with each other until they die. If that's the case, I get your point.
on August 8,2012 | 10:42PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Marriage has change over the centuries! Please at the begin of the 1900s they were arranged and used to transfer property and control wealth. So do not tell us it has not changed. There was a time that inter-racial marriage was illegal - you need to grow-up. Know that your bigotry will DIE with you!
on August 8,2012 | 07:33PM
8082062424 wrote:
This is about redefining marriage at the core. it as old as dirt and been around from the start. What wrong with giving them all the rights and benefits and protection under the law just give it a another name? that way both sides wins
on August 9,2012 | 06:11AM
Imagen wrote:
Hawaii’s marriage laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman “are not unconstitutional,” Kay said. “If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.” ~ Judge Alan Kay Finally, someone got this right! Thank you Judge Kay! If you want change in the law, then seek legislation. If you want an interpretation or an application of the laws, then look to the courts. @Manoa_Hawaiian above...when you leave the interpretation of the law to the judge, there may be personal beliefs that could influence their decision in the process. After all, he is human. He did his homework, then rendered his decision based on the information and evidence he was presented with, coupled with HIS interpretation of the law. If you wanted a different decision, then you need to change the law(s) in which this applies to...
on August 8,2012 | 11:51AM
hi5ho wrote:
How disappointing. I hate when people defend their intolerance by saying that it's the law and if they want it changed they should change the law.
on August 8,2012 | 12:08PM
walaau808 wrote:
Is what Imagen saying wrong?
on August 8,2012 | 03:30PM
Bdpapa wrote:
He made a very well thoughtout decision. Agree with him or not his decisions are based on the way everything is written.
on August 8,2012 | 11:54AM
hi5ho wrote:
Marriage equality is not an attack on traditional marriage. Divorce is!!!!
on August 8,2012 | 12:13PM
Denominator wrote:
That's a cute phrase but meaningless, like many of the arguments for "gay marriage." Does anyone have a constitutional right to marriage? Where would that have come from? No one has seen that written in the Constitution.
on August 8,2012 | 01:05PM
onwardupward wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 8,2012 | 04:01PM
Denominator wrote:
All men and women have equal rights to marriage. Marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women. You are asking for a different right - something between the same sexes. Stop confusing the two they are apples and oranges.
on August 8,2012 | 06:25PM
serfboy wrote:
How does same-sex marriage threaten any opposite-sex marriages? Are opposite-sex marriages so fragile that same-sex marriages will cause a spike in divorces? I believe not. Because marriage is about a commitment of a bond of love to another soul. My view of "traditional family values" are children going back and forth between spending time with their divorced parents. (Was it about a 50% divorce rate?) OR a single mother with children from different fathers; the single mother won't marry her children's father because they'll receive less welfare benefits.
on August 8,2012 | 08:41PM
pgkemp wrote:
AMEN
on August 8,2012 | 12:17PM
HollyJHuber wrote:
John D’Amato, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he plans to appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
on August 8,2012 | 12:42PM
Descartes22 wrote:
Too bad this guy is the lawyer who brought the test case. He's a horribly incompetent buffoon. It's an unfortunate byproduct of the judicial system but often bad law is established through bad lawyering. If this case is appealed to the 9th Circuit, he needs to step aside in favor of an attorney who knows what he or she is doing.
on August 8,2012 | 02:31PM
HollyJHuber wrote:
That Judge Kay is a religious nut!
on August 8,2012 | 12:43PM
Denominator wrote:
What kind nut are u?
on August 8,2012 | 01:06PM
walaau808 wrote:
I'm thinking left...
on August 8,2012 | 03:31PM
walaau808 wrote:
could be right...
on August 8,2012 | 03:43PM
serfboy wrote:
She's the same person who scrutinizes the City's Real Property Assessment Division's practices. She brings to light the inconsistencies and deficiencies of the City's ordinances and its implementation.
on August 8,2012 | 08:43PM
luvshawaii wrote:
Too bad he isn't a separation of church and state nut. Then you'd love him! How's the $100,000.00 working out for you guys.
on August 8,2012 | 01:13PM
Ronin006 wrote:
Finally, a judge who has it right.
on August 8,2012 | 01:02PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Right wing judge that will be over turned!
on August 8,2012 | 06:30PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
OK, who's up for lunch at Chik-Fil-A?
on August 8,2012 | 01:05PM
8082062424 wrote:
i be careful with that one lot of them still really upset that it back fired on them
on August 8,2012 | 01:21PM
Bdpapa wrote:
Iʻm in!
on August 8,2012 | 03:05PM
Tarakian wrote:
Love my gay family members and friends. I'm glad that marriage is upheld for a man and woman, respectfully.
on August 8,2012 | 01:07PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
You love them but you do not love them enough to support equality - that is sad and pathetic!
on August 8,2012 | 07:36PM
soundofreason wrote:
Loving someone doesn't mean you have to forfeit your individual values/beliefs.
on August 8,2012 | 08:50PM
Bdpapa wrote:
Yes, accept the honesty
on August 8,2012 | 09:16PM
serfboy wrote:
I love my straight family members and friends. I grieve and still love them when their marriage falls apart for whatever reason.
on August 8,2012 | 08:46PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Just giveit some time. Aftera year or two people will figure out that civil unions will not cause the demise of our society and culture as opponents claimed and then we can have a discussion on why we wouldn't extend the right to marry to same sex couples. Only a matter of time. When it does happens, we should give protections to churches that do not want same sex weddings to be performed on their property..
on August 8,2012 | 01:20PM
luvshawaii wrote:
Sounds like "conditioning" to me.
on August 8,2012 | 04:47PM
kuewa wrote:
Many of the comments here confuse religious/personal beliefs and the legal institution of marriage. Judge Kay also seems confused, arguing to uphold his own beliefs about marriage without recognizing that the court cases are regarding legal recognition of an adult partnership, including equal interpersonal rights and tax benefits regardless of whether your partner is same or opposite sex. To make it even more clear, it should be pointed out that a couple can be married in a church but not be legally married, and can be legally married without church recognition. This is not about changing anyone's religious beliefs; this is about affording equal legal rights regardless of religious affiliation. In this respect, Judge Kay has made an obvious judgement error that will likely be overturned at a higher level.
on August 8,2012 | 01:53PM
Denominator wrote:
You may be the confused one. The Judge says there's no Constitutional right to marry. Laws give tax breaks to all kinds of groups. There's nothing in the Constitution about a right to marry. You are correct that marriage isn't necessarily about religion and certainly it isn't about any particular religion. Religion has nothing to do with this issue. The whole world for thousands of years has known the definition of marriage.
on August 8,2012 | 03:23PM
kuewa wrote:
No you are confused, and also getting hung up on the term "marriage." True, there is no Constitutional right to marriage. However, there is right to equal protection under the law. This means that a granted right, benefit, status, etc. must be equally available to all. The Federal government grants beneficial status to heterosexual couples under the legal (not religious) name of marriage. Under equal protection the same rights should be granted to all consenting adult couples unless some harm to society or reason for unequal benefit can be proven.
on August 8,2012 | 04:31PM
Denominator wrote:
Marriage is equally available to all. Marriage is a relationship between men and women. You don't want that right, you want a different right - regarding relationships between the same sexes. That's a different right.
on August 8,2012 | 06:18PM
hawaiikone wrote:
My thoughts exactly. And the Judge's.
on August 8,2012 | 07:00PM
kuewa wrote:
At the Federal level, which is the current issue, marriage was not defined as opposite-sex only until DOMA. DOMA has now been ruled unconstitutional by several courts and has not been defended by DOJ. Original Federal law leaves the definition of marriage to the States; several States have legalized same-sex marriage and de facto state-level marriage (civil unions). On the Federal level, this creates an equal protection issue at the Federal level. If you remember, the US is founded on the principle of individual rights under the law, not individual rights as decided by you and your beliefs.
on August 9,2012 | 01:16AM
IEBuzzin wrote:
All this over the sanctity of an institution that accommodates prenuptial agreements, divorce, and abortion.
on August 8,2012 | 01:57PM
Dimbulb wrote:
“If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.” ~ Judge Alan Kay I think anyone can understand what he means but does he really believe that under the Constitution of the United States that this subject can be fixed one way or the other by way of a vote by the people or elected legislature? I do believe that the United States Supreme Court will have a much more narrow opinion than Judge Kay, that is if they elect to take on this subject. To be specific, income tax would be one place where civil unions do not get the same treatment as married couples. I would think that this would be an area that the court might consider.
on August 8,2012 | 01:59PM
frings wrote:
The laws deny same sex individuals who are married in states that allow same sex marriage rights in other states, which is a a clear cut violation of the "full faith and credit" portion of the United States Constitution. Since it is the MORMON CHURCH that is behind these insidious attacks on marriage equality, I am today beginning a petition that will allow the State of Hawaii to ignore the validity of a marriage between two individuals if EITHER of the two are Mormon.
on August 8,2012 | 02:08PM
walaau808 wrote:
I believe the mormon church is exercising it's right to support a position, much like you are doing right here. And good luck with that petition of yours...
on August 8,2012 | 03:37PM
Descartes22 wrote:
The "majority rules in a democratic system" basis underpinning this judge's opinion would sanction the school segregation and John Crow laws of yore. A case of this import should not have been assigned to an old timer, like Kay, who lacks a modern mindset.
on August 8,2012 | 02:25PM
Denominator wrote:
The definition of marriage and "segregation" have NOTHING in common. That's like saying the speed limit on H-1 should be different because segregation was wrong. Or we should raise the drinking age because segregation was wrong. Or we should raise taxes on the wealthy because segregation was wrong. Or we should allow vacation rentals in Kailua because segregation was wrong. STUPID.
on August 8,2012 | 05:01PM
Descartes22 wrote:
You do not comprehend the point. The legal basis for this court's ruling is that majority rules. However, equal protection principles under the federal constitution ignore majority rules legislation. Indeed, this is a primary purpose of the United States Constitution. Equal protection matters on issues like marriage and segregation have nothing to do with legislation relating to drinking ages, taxes, or vacation rentals. Perhaps you should attend analogy school.
on August 8,2012 | 05:17PM
Denominator wrote:
You obviously didn't bother to read the ruling.
on August 8,2012 | 06:07PM
Descartes22 wrote:
Don't know why you suggest that I failed to read the opinion. I did. It was premised on the Equal Protection clause and how the state's law - specifically a Constitutional Amendment - effectively provided the Court with ammunition to trump a reasonable interpretation of the federal Constitution. It was a classic state's right opinion, of the ilk justified in year's past to uphold discriminatory laws. I suspect YOU did not bother to read the opinion. Based on your tortured analogies, I also suspect you do not have the capacity to understand a legal opinion,
on August 8,2012 | 08:06PM
sgsorensen wrote:
Coward.
on August 8,2012 | 02:32PM
9ronboz wrote:
Yes to traditional marriage. Thank you Judge Kay
on August 8,2012 | 02:33PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
My wife thinks traditional marriage means she gets to tell me what to do.
on August 8,2012 | 02:41PM
Bdpapa wrote:
Mine too, where is that written?
on August 8,2012 | 03:06PM
medigogo wrote:
They can call theirs gayiage, lesbiage and transiage. Problem solved.
on August 8,2012 | 02:49PM
Mana07 wrote:
Thank you Judge Kay! I can't wait until Romney is elected! It is time to beginning getting the country back on the right track. Although the damage done by these extreme liberals is going to take years to correct. Another four years of Obama = Union of Socialist States of America.
on August 8,2012 | 03:57PM
Denominator wrote:
An Obamanation.
on August 8,2012 | 04:55PM
frontman wrote:
A man of honor and the law.
on August 8,2012 | 04:50PM
blackmurano wrote:
We finally have a "Federal Judge" that has made a "common sense" decison to uphold the ban on homosexual marriage voted by the people of Hawaii in 1998. This Federal or State judges is surely not the ones in the good State of California who have gone against the marjority who voted legally to ban this homosexual marriage in that State not once but twice. Now we have a far liberal, and still an activist by heart, Abercrombie trying to destroy God's traditional marriage. I believe at one after the 1998 victory, someone took the issue to court where the Hawaii Supreme Court striking it down to uphold Hawaii ban on homosexual marriage.
on August 8,2012 | 05:16PM
konag43 wrote:
finally we have a judge who knows right from wrong. coservative christian or nut it all has to do with morals which should be the governing factor in our state. . when you start taking away morality things go hay wire
on August 8,2012 | 05:56PM
3012708737 wrote:
Your definition of morality, the judge's definition of morality, the Taliban's definition of morality, a skinhead's definition of morality--who's morality are you talking about. The Bible--where in Leviticus it tells us not to eat lobster and anyone with a flat nose, or who is blind or lame can't go to the altar of God? Why don't you mind your own morality, and leave the rest of us to mind ours as long as we live within the law and don't ruin each other's lives?
on August 8,2012 | 06:42PM
BigIslandSon wrote:
Anyone with any brain at all must realize that denying gays the right to marry is discrimination. The religious zealots are the only ones who object because it violates their beloved bible, a belief system like many others that's fine until it denies the rights of others and leads to discrimination. The days of religious homophobia are numbered as more and more states are allowing gay marriage. Hopefully, Hawaii is not one of the last states to continue to tolerate this type of discrimination.
on August 8,2012 | 06:47PM
soundofreason wrote:
Meeeow
on August 8,2012 | 08:51PM
justin_thyme wrote:
Judge Kay's ruling should come as no surprise to anyone. After all, he's an 80-year-old conservative Christian, an ex-Marine, a Reagan appointee, and a descendant of several branches of "kama'aina" caucasian missionary families (you know, the folks who supported the overthrow of the constitutional monarchy that once was the Kingdom of Hawai'i). The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will provide the first potential for having a fair and impartial forum rule on this case -- all depending, of course, on which appellate court judges are assigned to decide the appeal.
on August 8,2012 | 07:40PM
ROBT wrote:
Civil right should not be left up to the majority.
on August 8,2012 | 07:59PM
Bdpapa wrote:
I donʻt think so!
on August 8,2012 | 09:17PM
thanks4reading wrote:
9th circuit already overturned california's prop 8 and will likely do so again. Also, the judge's legal rational (as in the article) failed to show any legal analysis and case history. Lovings v. Virginia marriage is a fundamental right requiring the state to have a compelling state interest to restrict it. Very few cases have found a compelling state interest involving any issue.
on August 8,2012 | 09:03PM
psyclox wrote:
I remember that it wasn't to long ago that it was against the law for my parents to get married because she is white and he is Hawaiian. They thought then that it was against the laws of god too. Sadly intolerance and prejudice hidden under the guise of religion is alive and well. Comparisons to sex with animals? Really? Ignorance reigns supreme.
on August 8,2012 | 09:17PM
hemahema wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 8,2012 | 09:55PM
kuewa wrote:
Our country is governed according the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not your interpretation of your chosen religion and "laws of nature." If you want to live by laws of nature and a literal interpretation of whichever version of the Bible you select, go ahead. But don't expect that this should infringe on the legal rights of others. You might also look more closely at the popular versions of the Bible. Many scholars agree that the oldest version of the selected text, prior to translation and re-interpretation, did not specifically prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did it define marriage as one man/one woman (in fact, polygamy appears to be condoned).
on August 9,2012 | 01:21AM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
The bible says adam and eve not adam and steve.
on August 9,2012 | 01:31AM
kailuabred wrote:
Old and lame. I can quote Dr Suess books; but, that doesn't make them non-fiction.
on August 10,2012 | 04:31AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News