• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Federal Court Upholds Marriage in Hawaii

    Yesterday, the federal district court in Hawaii ruled that Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

    This ruling comes as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to review multiple cases involving the issue of same-sex marriage and voters in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington prepare to vote this fall on how marriage should be defined in those states.

    In 1994, Hawaii lawmakers amended a state statute “to clarify the legislature’s intention that marriage should be limited to those of the opposite-sex.” In 1998, voters in Hawaii ratified an amendment to their state constitution that expressly states that the legislature “shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

    In ruling yesterday that these laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution, the court explained the need for judicial restraint regarding whether to redefine marriage. “If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured,” the court explained, “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.”

    The governor of Hawaii, providing yet another example of an executive official refusing to defend laws protecting marriage, refused to defend the constitutionality of Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Instead, he left that task to the director of the State Department of Health.

    Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman was also defended by the Hawaii Family Forum, an intervening defendant represented by the national public interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund).

    Society has strong reasons to protect marriage. Though not every husband and wife can or will create children, only a man and woman can create children and provide them with both a mother and a father. Marriage is society’s best means of ensuring that children will be born into intact families and raised by the mother and father who created them.

    Individuals marry based on various private interests. The public interest in marriage, in contrast, is based directly on the role that marriage plays in creating and raising the next generation. Same-sex marriage breaks the essential connection between marriage, children, and the mothers and fathers who create them.

    Same-sex marriage also puts the law on the wrong side of reality by claiming that marriage is something other than what it is: the union of husband and wife. Many kinds of relationships are meaningful and valuable to the individuals involved and even to the broader public. But that does not make them marriages. It is not irrational or bigoted for the law to recognize that marriage is a unique kind of relationship deserving a unique kind of status.

    The marriage debate presents society with fundamentally different visions of what marriage is. By ruling that Hawaii’s definition of marriage does not violate the U.S. Constitution, the federal district court in Hawaii has enabled this debate to continue through political processes.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Federal Court Upholds Marriage in Hawaii

    1. Pete Houston says:

      The will of the majority of the population should be respected vs the opinion of a minority of the population. If the minority do not like the rules of Hawaii they are free to move to a state that recognizes that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. That is the beauty of the United States. Each state
      can have rules that support how they want. Want to have 5 wives, move to a state that allows 5 wives. Want to have 5 husbands, move to a state that allows that choice.

      • sue says:

        I agree…I, am sick of a small percentage of the population telling the rest of us how to think and act. I saw this coming in the late 70's with a lawsuit against people wearing perfume and cologne because it bothered 1 person. Everyone has the right to live in a state that promote s their lifestyle. This is a states issue NOT a judicial or federal one. We, the majority need to KEEP speaking out and not let the false labels given to us keep us from doing so. They keep screaming about their ( any minority) rights, well, WE have them too!!!!

        • sue7402 says:

          Equal Rights. Look it up. You have the right to visit your spouse in the hospital and share income tax forms and share healthcare benefits. Its about equal rights. its illegal inn the state of california to smoke in a, public building. Because a group of non smokers decided it infringed on their right to clean air. Now, because gay people want equal rights, a group comes flying against them with laws that were written in the 1800's. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we have a black president! The black population was beaten and used for slavery at one time. The world evolves.

      • John Locke says:

        Fortunately, the court in Hawaii has a lot more common sense than in California. Proposition 8 (denying gay marriage) was passed by millions of voters and nullified, first by one ignorant judge and then the 9th Circuit, the most liberal circuit in the country. I have no respect whatsoever for that judge, the 9th Circuit, or anyone who thinks his decision represents justice.

      • kaydell says:

        I agree with you. That the states can and should have laws as long as they do not violate the constitution that allow their citizens the choice they make. This is the beauty of living in the USA one can select the state which has the laws and such that fit ones values. Unfortunatley Progessive-Socailism which about 50 percent of the citizens espouse say that it is the big government that should make the decisions.

    2. Verna Raffety says:

      The second to last paragraph is well written and says it all.

    3. Jay says:

      Pretty soon we will have the Supreme Court decide if 2+2 really =4! Using China as an example, marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman for the last 5000 years. Why do we need to change now?

      • sue7402 says:

        We change that now because same sex couples are no longer afraid of society. Its something no one understands until a member of their family announces they are gay. And even then, that person is often forgotten as a family member. Lots of gay people do get married to opposite sex in an effort to be accepted. It doesn't change the fact that they are gay. being gay is not a choice. If you believe it is a choice, you must be in the group of people who are, and try to be accepted by being so vocal against it.

    4. Wesin the midwest says:

      Well, it has been a slow journey downward. It started with easy divorces.
      Then it went to live-in couples. Now it dropped down to same-sex couples.
      It simply is a digression in morals. Trans-genders are the next step down.
      Then pediphiles will want their rights. It's not really a rights situation.
      It is just a digression in morals. America is destroying itself morally.

    5. noyoucant says:

      You folks have some great (& correct) thoughts. Do not only use Facebook for your comments. Write a short article for your hometown paper expressing your opinion. We need to get to the local folks who are not so well informed. Our biggest problem is really not Obama. It is the people of our country taking their freedoms for granted and not keeping track of politicians once they are in office. WE need to wake up.

    6. david Siebot says:

      One man one woman that is it!!! any thing else is going against the 98% of the US. Let them be in their lust for same sex. Alone!

    7. Buddy001 says:

      In the beginning there was one man, then one woman, which constituted a family union. Read the Bible. It's all there.

    8. Derasem says:

      I am very happy that the court decided not to legislate from the bench. And, I completely agree with the explaination Mr. Messner gave as to why marriage has the definition it does and why it should remain so.

    9. nikkihilton says:

      I like last two paragraphs what you written here… Thanks for sharing.

      Hawaii Medicare

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×