A federal judge will rule later on Hawaii’s ban on same-sex marriage after hearing more than two hours of arguments Tuesday on the legal landscape here and around the country on the controversial topic.
Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay presided over a hearing on a lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and a gay man contending that the state marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution provisions guaranteeing 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.
Abercrombie’s team agrees with the plaintiffs that the laws violate the Constitution, while Fuddy’s team defended the laws.
The two teams also disagreed on their interpretations of major court decisions.
William Wynhoff, a deputy attorney general representing Fuddy, argued that a 1972 refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Minnesota case involving a denial of same-sex marriages requires a dismissal of the Hawaii lawsuit.
But Girard Lau, Abercrombie’s deputy attorney general, argued that the 1972 case doesn’t apply because it dealt with discrimination based on gender and not sexual orientation. Also, Minnesota did not have a civil unions law, Lau said.
John D’Amato, lawyer for the couple, Natasha Jackson and Janin Klein, and for Gary Bradley, argued that the state has no rational basis in allowing same-sex couples here to have the same rights as married couples under the civil unions law yet deny them the right to be married.
Dale Schowengerdt, attorney for Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, argued that the passage of the civil union legislation does not mean that Hawaii marriage laws are unconstitutional.
Attorney Clyde Wadsworth, who represents Equality Hawaii and the Hawaii LGBT Legal Association, urged the judge to reject the arguments by Fuddy and Hawaii Family Forum.
