Baehr v. Miike

In his Conclusions of Law, Judge Chang had noted the possible ramifications of Baehr in light of Article IV, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides in part that states must recognize the "public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State." The question of whether other states would recognize or refuse to recognize same- sex marriages made in Hawaii was an important one: if a couple were married in Hawaii, then moved to a state which did not recognize same-sex marriages, they would be denied the rights Hawaii had conferred on them. Such a controversy would undoubtedly require a decision by the Supreme Court. Throughout 1997 and 1998, a number of related issues arose across corners of the nation: Baker v. Vermont, a case in that state which became the second legal challenge to different-sex marriage laws; an action in a California federal court regarding a San Francisco domestic partnership ordinance; and an Alaska court's decision to allow a same-sex marriage lawsuit to proceed. In mid-1998, the Baehr controversy simmered, with the ever-present potential to ignite into a legal battle in the nation's highest court. Both sides could at least agree on one thing about Baehr: it was, to borrow a term from television cliffhangers, "to be continued."