« DHS Public Safety Commission - November 14, 2013 | Main | Borderline Interesting »

November 18, 2013

Hawaii Court Decision

In Hawaii, Republican State Legislator Bob McDermott took the very unusual step of filing a court motion requesting an injunction to stop a bill that would have legalized same sex marriage. This was before the legislature had passed it and the governor signed it! You can read that filing here. An essential part of his argument is that Hawaiians did not understand the constitutional amendment that they approved in 1998. The amendment is Section 23 of Article 1 in the Hawaii Constitution. Here is the full text of the amendment:

"The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."

Anybody who can read will readily understand that this amendment is not the people banning same sex marriage, but is the people granting an additional power to the legislature.

Rep. McDermott says his whole point is "Let the people vote." But he ignores the fact that they did vote. The amendment process for the Hawaii Constitution requires approval by a vote of the people after passing the legislature. They approved this very simple amendment and have had it for 15 years. Today is the 10th anniversary of the court decision recognizing equal rights in Massachusetts. In these past 10 years with all the changes that have come, are we to believe that no one in Hawaii re-read this amendment and thought it was worth revising until this very, very late moment?

Circuit Court Judge Sakamoto has ruled against Rep. McDermott. You can read that ruling here. The fifth sentence in the Introduction to that ruling says "...this court lacks the authority to grant Plaintiff's requested relief." He goes on to say that the court cannot interfere with the passing of a bill by the legislature or the signing of a bill by the governor. The judge also ruled that bills cannot be subject to requests for declaratory relief, McDermott does not have standing, and McDermott had "completely failed" to demonstrate the bill would be unconstitutional.

Filed under Gay Issues | permalink | November 18, 2013 at 08:08 PM

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.