Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 23, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 99 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Judge rejects challenge to Hawaii's gay marriage law

By Star-Advertiser staff

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:11 p.m. HST, Jan 29, 2014


A Circuit Court judge this morning granted the state's motion for summary judgment and threw out state Rep. Bob McDermott's legal challenge to the state's gay marriage law.

Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled that the law, which took effect in December, is legal under both the state and federal constitutions. Sakamoto had previously denied McDermott's request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block the law from taking effect.

Attorney General David Louie has argued that the state Legislature was within its power when it approved a gay marriage bill in special session last fall. Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed the bill into law.

Shawn Luiz, an attorney for McDermott, told the court that the Legislature needed to place another constitutional amendment before voters in order to change a 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the Legislature the power to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

McDermott, an Ewa Beach Republican who opposes gay marriage, said he would appeal the court's ruling.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 99 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(99)
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.
DowntownGreen wrote:
Of course he'll appeal... his base would accept nothing less. I hope he's not wasting taxpayer money on it.
on January 29,2014 | 11:43AM
cojef wrote:
That depends on who is paying for the court in session?
on January 29,2014 | 11:51AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
And the attorneys.
on January 29,2014 | 11:55AM
hawaiikone wrote:
I see how gracefully your team is handling this decision.
on January 29,2014 | 03:23PM
frontman wrote:
Why would a socialist judge support the will of the people......never happen.
on January 29,2014 | 04:14PM
klastri wrote:
frontman: That's an interesting accusation. What makes you think that Judge Sakamoto is a socialist? How many times have you tried a case in his courtroom? And if you have tried a case before him, you might consider surrendering your license to practice law. In a constitutional case, the will of the people is not one of the facts. The poor craftsman blames his tools.
on January 29,2014 | 04:21PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
klastri - Oddly enough, frontman is a tool.
on January 29,2014 | 05:49PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Socialist,lol,hahaha
on January 29,2014 | 08:54PM
SY808 wrote:
Of Course he is wasting taxpayer's money. Every time state attorney general David Louie has to go and defend the law, it is tax payers that are footing the bill....
on January 29,2014 | 12:14PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
I'll preface my comment by stating that I don't agree with McDermott's stance...but there is a percentage of those taxpayers who believe that continuing to fight this bill is money well spent because they share his opinion on the issue. I agree that this seems a lot like slamming his head against the wall, but he has vowed to pursue every avenue available to him and that's what he appears to be doing.
on January 29,2014 | 01:03PM
jotobuddy123 wrote:
Agree. Well said!
on January 29,2014 | 02:57PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
DowntownGreen - The only appeal McDermutt has is to a bunch of similarly ridiculous losers.
on January 29,2014 | 02:21PM
8082062424 wrote:
He needs to give it up. the battle was fought and the other side won. save his energy for future fights. let this one be already
on January 29,2014 | 12:00PM
GorillaSmith wrote:
That sums it up.
on January 29,2014 | 12:13PM
SY808 wrote:
A Bigot and his Office are soon parted... November 4th can't get here soon enough!
on January 29,2014 | 12:16PM
kainalu wrote:
I sure hope so. I was shocked that the people in that District - a place I lived for 30-years - would vote for a fear-monger such as this.
on January 29,2014 | 01:03PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Like berg, these GOP slither in.
on January 29,2014 | 08:56PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
So in essence, you are a Bigot as well since you can't agree with McDermott's stance. How does it feel BIGOT?
on January 29,2014 | 05:18PM
klastri wrote:
Before criticizing someone, it would help to understand the meaning of the word and the context in which it is used. Maybe a dictionary?
on January 29,2014 | 09:49PM
hawaiiwalter wrote:
Is this guy a closet homosexual? He's fighting harder than Republican Larry "wide stance" Criag and all those other Republican politicians who got caught with their pants down. With all the problems that we have here in Hawaii and on the mainland, he's worrying about two people who love each other and want to share their life together. Give it a rest.
on January 29,2014 | 12:16PM
JnS wrote:
I think you answered your own question quite well.
on January 29,2014 | 12:44PM
kispest wrote:
What a surprise....The State is "ruled" by the liberals.
on January 29,2014 | 12:18PM
klastri wrote:
No, the state is ruled by law. You just don't understand what the law is. Complaining from a position of ignorance is the hallmark of conservatives. They have taken up the banner of aggressive and willful ignorance.
on January 29,2014 | 12:28PM
kispest wrote:
I think you are the ignorant, do to the fact, that you are brainwashed.
on January 29,2014 | 12:37PM
OldEnoughToRemember wrote:
That's why you don't get paid for thinking.
on January 29,2014 | 01:46PM
klastri wrote:
kispest: Let me take a wild guess that you were not the captain of your college debating team.
on January 29,2014 | 02:23PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
klastri - You are wrong sir. kispest is a master debater.
on January 29,2014 | 03:14PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
well said, klastri.
on January 29,2014 | 12:52PM
Kahu Matu wrote:
Democracy can be undone by 1 judge. Sad state in which we live.
on January 29,2014 | 12:26PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
The law was enacted overwhelmingly by democratically elected Legislators and signed into law by an overwhelmingly democratically elected Governor. Your "selective" definition of democracy is what is disingenuous and sad.
on January 29,2014 | 12:33PM
lwandcah wrote:
By democratially elected legislators that failed to be the voice of those who elected them.
on January 29,2014 | 01:42PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
In your opinion. Mine voted exactly how I wanted them too. If you don't like how yours voted, then run against him/her or vote him/her out. That's how representative democracy works.
on January 29,2014 | 01:52PM
hawaiiwalter wrote:
You might want to go back to high school if in fact you ever attended one. Anyone who makes a statement like that is only displaying their ignorance. If you're so unhappy about living in Hawaii, why not move to Alabama or Mississippi.
on January 29,2014 | 12:33PM
klastri wrote:
You apparently didn't pay attention in 8th grade Civics class. One judge cannot do what you say. So it'll be appealed again and McDermott will fail again. The constitution will not allow the prohibition against same sex marriage to stand anywhere. The framers of the constitution designed it to work that way. It's sad and pathetic that so many folks (coincidentally, a lot of homophobes) don't know how the law works.
on January 29,2014 | 12:35PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Kahu Matu - Then move loser. There are a lot of bigoted red states where you would be welcome (unless, of course, you are not white).
on January 29,2014 | 02:23PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Do you realize you're a BIGOT yourself, while lambasting another BIGOT. You should look up the definition of a bigot. It does not describe a hetero, a homo, or a trany....it only depicts the essence of what a person believes in or has a stance regarding. Just saying.
on January 29,2014 | 05:23PM
bekwell wrote:
The judge is gay.
on January 29,2014 | 12:30PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
bekwel is stupid.
on January 29,2014 | 02:24PM
klastri wrote:
McDermott is a pathetic, ignorant piece of garbage. So this futile, failed fight he's waging (by himself) is not a particular surprise. He'll just waste more taxpayer money on his appeal - but pander to his base of homophobes who are stuck in 1950. The good news is that the more money his supporters waste on this fight, the less they'll trust him the next time he asks for money.
on January 29,2014 | 12:31PM
hawaiiwalter wrote:
klastri...well said!
on January 29,2014 | 12:37PM
kiragirl wrote:
Why all the venom? Gee whiz.
on January 29,2014 | 01:00PM
OldEnoughToRemember wrote:
Ask Mr. McDermott.
on January 29,2014 | 01:48PM
daniwitz13 wrote:
This is typical of Gays, give them what they want and they'll use it against you, in their dirty way. Pity
on January 29,2014 | 02:01PM
klastri wrote:
It's the law. The pity is that you didn't pay attention in middle school Civics class.
on January 29,2014 | 02:08PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
daniwitz13 - A fool's fool.
on January 29,2014 | 02:41PM
klastri wrote:
Because people are trying to decide how our friends and neighbors live their lives - and deny one group a right that others have. That kind of ignorant and selfish behavior deserves venom. Lots of it.
on January 29,2014 | 02:17PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
kiragirl - The slithering snake worrying about someone else's venom.
on January 29,2014 | 02:26PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
Says the snake.
on January 29,2014 | 02:28PM
lookup wrote:
the abuse of taxpayers money is the fact that Hawaii's citizens voted that the legislature would decide that marriage is between one man and one woman! that is what we voted for and then we find out that we were tricked by words. a good representative will continue fighting for what his people believe is the right thing. those are the people who are paying the taxes and those are the ones who will decide who they will be voting for in Nov.
on January 29,2014 | 01:25PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
That may have been what YOU voted for, but it's not what the framers of the amendment intended (they were very transparent about it at the time) nor is it what it stated. If you were "tricked", who's fault is that?
on January 29,2014 | 01:39PM
klastri wrote:
You're wrong, of course. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are ignorant about same sex marriage and homophobic, so by the time the next election rolls around, none of this will matter. You can sit and complain in an echo chamber, but society has passed you by.
on January 29,2014 | 02:16PM
blackmurano wrote:
That's a lot of crap!. We wasted tax payer money on that special election to appease most lawmakers in the Democratic control legislature who wanted this "Perversion marriage." McDermott deserves a lot of credit for not giving up in a State control by the Liberal Democratic party who granted Perversion marriage over the majority of citizens in this State.
on January 29,2014 | 09:29PM
Makai4757 wrote:
He should be accountable for all court costs, this train has left the station. Mahalo Hawaii
on January 29,2014 | 12:35PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Yes he should and if he wont pay then he should resign!
on January 29,2014 | 02:50PM
Kuokoa wrote:
This certainly sounds like a catch-22. The legislature is within its powers to pass the law but it seems to be in conflict with the constitutional amendment.
on January 29,2014 | 12:49PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
That's why the Attorney General got involved, did his job, and ruled it was not in conflict. That's why a judge is involved, did his job, and ruled it is not in conflict. And Rep. McDermott will keep trying until there is someone in the Judiciary that agrees with him, but most likely he won't. It is the Judiciary's role to determine if there is a conflict from here on out.
on January 29,2014 | 01:12PM
OldEnoughToRemember wrote:
The ConAm was purposely worded the way it was - the legislature MAY define marriage as man & woman. It was purposely written so that the Legislature isn't mandated or required to define it as such. There is no conflict. Some folks just can't comprehend words written on paper while some allow others to read and think for them. McDermott himself admitted in court that he didn't understand, or must have misread the legislation and his concern was that it would impact his reputation with voters. Well yeah, DUH! If you can't understand legislation, then maybe you shouldn't be a legislator.
on January 29,2014 | 01:53PM
klastri wrote:
It was not in conflict. The amendment was a poorly written piece of trash that everyone involved knew could not stand a challenge. The legislature was either going to overturn it, or they were going to have to fight to defend it in an expensive trial and lose doing that. One way or the other, equality was going to win.
on January 29,2014 | 02:14PM
NoFlippinWay wrote:
Pack your hate and go home Bob.
on January 29,2014 | 12:59PM
CriticalReader wrote:
I'm perplexed about what exactly McDermott was and is hoping to accomplish at this point. What has it been? Two, three months since the law was enacted? And, already, Hawaii has settled into acceptance and conciliation. In the end, the will of the majority as expressed through their elected officials (most of whom it seems would not have a personal stake in the outcome of the vote), chose to respect the choices, however foreign or unfamiliar to them personally, of others. Which God(s) we worship, who we choose to share out lives with. what we THINK about this that or the other thing, in the end, Hawaii respects those things as personal choices not to be punished or discriminated against - and that is good news. Mr. McDermott apparently still doesn't respect that, believing it is his job to impose upon those choices - and that is, and will continue to be, bad news.
on January 29,2014 | 01:12PM
Senior_Researcher wrote:
If Bvtt-hole Bob was as obsessed with serving his constituents as he is with who is sleeping with whom, his district might actually be getting something for their money!
on January 29,2014 | 01:22PM
lwandcah wrote:
If the only concern was as simple as "who is sleeping with whom", you would not have had suh an ovewheming response from the public opposed to SB1. This issue is an indication of the direction we are headed in; and it's all about me, me, me.
on January 29,2014 | 01:48PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Ah, but it wasn't overwhelming. Loud? Yes. But overwhelming? We'll see on election day.
on January 29,2014 | 01:59PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
But it wasn't "overwhelming". Somewhat loud, yes. But if you think the Legislators would have voted for it if the public was "overwhelmingly" against it, you may want to study up a bit on how politics actually works.
on January 29,2014 | 02:06PM
klastri wrote:
I sat through every minute of the testimony, and it was essentially a parade of people who wished the United States was a theocracy. The bible says this, and the bible says that .... It was pathetic and sad. So the people that suggest there was one shred of logic or law in any of the complaints simply don't know what they're talking about. The complainers showed no standing, no harm and no damages. None. The law, thankfully, doesn't care what the bible says, or what you think for that matter. If you really want a theocracy, take a look at Iran and see how well things work.
on January 29,2014 | 02:11PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
klastri - You sat through every minute of the testimony? My condolences.
on January 29,2014 | 03:16PM
klastri wrote:
Thanks for your kind thoughts, but I was working. I'm an attorney at the federal appellate bar and I wanted to hear the arguments used here. They will be the same ones, sadly, that will be used in Texas. My firm is working (as are an increasing number of large law firms) pro bono to overturn bans on gay marriage in states, and I'm on the Texas case. If you want to read how sad and pathetic the anti-equality side can get, you should read the argument from the State of Utah filed to keep their ban on same sex marriage. It makes Bob McDermott look like a MENSA member.
on January 29,2014 | 03:39PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
klastri - Keep up your fine work.
on January 29,2014 | 04:06PM
klastri wrote:
Before moving into appellate law, I spent most of my adult lifetime taking people apart on witness stands. The goal was to find a loose thread in a person's testimony that I could pull and pull and pull until they were naked in front of a jury. But I've never had as much fun as I'm having now against this crowd of homophobic bigots back in the courtroom. As mean as it may sound, if I can sense real hatred toward gay people from one of them, I'll do everything possible to make sure she or he walks off the stand a humiliated wet noodle. I see, Mr.Smith. Have you ever worked on a Sunday, even just once? Or have you ever eaten a shrimp? I remind you that you are under oath.....
on January 29,2014 | 04:32PM
justin_thyme wrote:
Thanks, klastri, for your great efforts for a noble cause. Social justice is always worth fighing for. While you're at it, take a look at filings and representations made by McDermott's born-again lawyer, Mr. Luiz -- and consider whether one or more ODC referrals, and/or investigations of possible Rule 11 violations, might be in order. Luiz is quite a piece of work, IMHO.
on January 29,2014 | 08:58PM
klastri wrote:
You know ... I thought about that when he filed his first appeal. The document was so poorly written that I suspect the lawyer could use incompetence as his defense if the judge challenged him. Lawyers tend to get a lot of leeway if a client insists on filing a lousy case.
on January 29,2014 | 10:00PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
"A Circuit Court judge this morning granted the state's motion for summary judgment and threw out state Rep. Bob McDermott's legal challenge to the state's gay marriage law." Next - we need to throw out McDermutt, and the rest of you loser homophobes.
on January 29,2014 | 02:20PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
Right on! Hele on bigots...
on January 29,2014 | 03:10PM
kukaikid wrote:
summary judgment = your case sucks and its time to go home immediately
on January 29,2014 | 02:49PM
Makapuu4 wrote:
daniwitz13 - Pitiful.
on January 29,2014 | 02:53PM
yhls wrote:
Now that gay marriage has been approved, the good news I that absolutely anything else is now possible. Next is legalizing pot.
on January 29,2014 | 02:59PM
klastri wrote:
It's a different question of law, but I suspect that you're correct. The issue with pot is that the cost of enforcement and incarceration makes less and less sense as time goes by. And the wildly different sentences handed down to whites and non-whites for possession has been a problem for years. It's just a matter of time now that Colorado has opened the door.
on January 29,2014 | 03:56PM
coki wrote:
Way to go Rep McDermott! There are 100's of thousands that support what you are doing. Don't give up for the minimal minority that supports such a sinful lifestyle. Don't feel bad for wasting taxpayers $, Governor Abercrombie has been wasting tax payers money for years now, including the hideous special session. Fight the good fight for all us God fearing and Christian abiding citizens.
on January 29,2014 | 03:02PM
NotNasti wrote:
The Star Advertiser and HNN poll revealed that the majority favored marriage equality. In my district, my senator said that his own poll revealed that the people in his district favored marriage equality by a 2 - 1 margin. The debacle we saw on TV was a large, well organized, religious majority, who had their testimony written for them by their churches.
on January 29,2014 | 03:27PM
NotNasti wrote:
Sorry, religious Minority, not majority.
on January 29,2014 | 03:28PM
localguy wrote:
Religion is a crutch for weak minded individuals.
on January 29,2014 | 05:02PM
klastri wrote:
coki - Your comment wrecked your own case. If all you have to back you up is the bible, you're living in the wrong country.
on January 29,2014 | 03:41PM
hawaiiwalter wrote:
coki...get real. You are living in a dream world. And why do you have to "fear' your God? What kind of religion makes you fear eveything? Why not try "love" next time.
on January 29,2014 | 03:54PM
klastri wrote:
You know ... that God fearing thing and the devil fearing thing always made be glad that my parents are atheists. My sister and I never had to worry about an invisible demon or anything like that. It's very refreshing!
on January 29,2014 | 03:59PM
localguy wrote:
coki - Got news for you. There is no god, proven by science. Bible totally written by us lowly humans. Truth is the number of people disapproving of gay marriage is on a constant downhill trend. Happening as the older generation passes on, younger ones taking over. Younger people do not have all the shibai hangups haunting the older generation. Gay marriage will eventually be the standard for all 50 states. Resistance is futile. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/01/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-affirmative-action-voting-rights/2479541/
on January 29,2014 | 05:02PM
pakeheat wrote:
You are in a big surprise localguy, don't call on God on you're last breath now, LOL. They say know that you know that you know.
on January 29,2014 | 06:26PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
This brings to mind the celebrations by anti-gay marriage people who danced the hula proclaiming that it was God's will for the bill to be stricken when it was first put out to vote. Now, what will these people use as an explanation? Of course, they will twist things and say it was against God's will as if to say God's will can be denied.
on January 29,2014 | 03:23PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Many will continue with their holier than thou pontificating using their version of religion as the only "true" word. They are becoming less and less relevant in an inclusive and just society and fail to see the hypocrisy in their position.
on January 29,2014 | 03:36PM
hawaiiwalter wrote:
Downtown...their version of religion is Catholic priests sexually molesting innocent little boys behind closed doors. Not to mention pregnant nuns, etc.
on January 29,2014 | 03:57PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
There are many Catholics who do not support the hierarchy's position on same-sex marriage. Actually, many polls show that a majority of rank and file Catholics support marriage equality.
on January 29,2014 | 04:05PM
frontman wrote:
Why would a socialist judge support the will of the people......never happen.
on January 29,2014 | 04:13PM
klastri wrote:
frontman: The sad thing is that you think the will of the people trumps the constitution. Your comment is another example of how the education system fails some people.
on January 29,2014 | 04:46PM
localguy wrote:
Bureaucrat Rep. Bob McDermott just can't admit he is a loser and let this go. Truth is the longer he drags out his shibai case the worse he looks to the taxpayers, wasting time and money on a case he knows he can't win. The man doesn't know his limitations as he should. Just another dysfunctional bureaucrat.
on January 29,2014 | 04:54PM
wiliki wrote:
McDermott... is dreaming if he thinks that his frivolous law suit is anything more than grandstanding.... He'll find he's losing a lot of votes by taking this legal action.
on January 29,2014 | 05:26PM
Senior_Researcher wrote:
In a new low, even for Bvtt-hole Bob, he basically calls the judge a coward after the hearing. He has no legal case so, rather than just saying he will appeal (a right guaranteed even to people who do it up the bvtt), he has to insult the judge. He is beyond a caricature.
on January 29,2014 | 06:57PM
7yearTribulation wrote:
The dividing line is clear. Wrong is right & right is wrong. And Jesus is the Judge , Repent for the wrath of God is coming
on January 29,2014 | 08:25PM
false wrote:
Burma shave!
on January 29,2014 | 09:05PM
blackmurano wrote:
Anyone surprise by this Judge ruling? We shouldn't be surprise - his a Democrat . A lot of credit goes to McDermott for not giving up for those who favor Godly family values - traditional marriage.
on January 29,2014 | 09:24PM
klastri wrote:
blackmurano: That's your argument? That the judge ruled this way because he's a Democrat? Do you think that only Democrats understand what the constitution says?
on January 29,2014 | 10:05PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News