| Baehr v. Miike | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Hawaii |
| Full case name | Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, Jeseph Mellilo, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Lawrence H. Miike, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant |
| Decided | December 9, 1999 |
| Citation | Supreme Court of Hawaii No. 20371 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), reconsideration and clarification granted in part, 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993) Baehr v. Miike, Circuit Court for the First Circuit, Hawaii No. 91-1394 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | James S. Burns, Walter M. Heen, Robert G. Klein, Steven H. Levinson, Ronald Moon (original Justices) |
| Case opinions | |
| Passage of a state constitutional amendment empowering the state legislature to limit marriage to mixed-sex couples renders plaintiff-appellees' case moot. Circuit court reversed and remanded to enter judgment for defendant-appellant. | |
| Keywords | |
| Same-sex marriage, Equal protection | |
Baehr v. Miike (originally Baehr v. Lewin) was a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. Initiated in 1990, 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. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution would have provided that all states would be potentially required to recognize marriages obtained in Hawaii, prompting the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 under Bill Clinton.[1] Dozens of statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions at the state level also followed Baehr.[2]
- ^ Socarides, Richard (March 8, 2013). "Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
As Republicans prepared for the 1996 Presidential election, they came up with what they thought was an extremely clever strategy. A gay-rights lawsuit in Hawaii was gaining press coverage…[they] believed...giving them a campaign issue: the defense of marriage.
- ^ Statsky, William P. (2002). Family Law, 5th edition. Albany, NY: Delmar/West Legal Studies. p. 135. ISBN 0766833585.