Baehr v. Miike - Same Sex Marriages, The Burden Of Proof Is On The State, Both Sides Marshal Their Experts
Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, and Joseph Melillo
Lawrence H. Miike, Director of Hawaii Department of Health
That the use of a Hawaii statute to forbid marriages by partners of the same sex violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Hawaii Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiffs
Daniel R. Foley
Chief Defense Lawyer
Rick J. Eichor, Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii
Kevin S. C. Chang, Judge of the First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii
Date of Decision
3 December 1996
That the application of Hawaii Revised Statute 572-1 to deny a marriage contract to same-sex partners violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Hawaii Constitution, and was therefore invalid.
For centuries, societies throughout the world had operated on the assumption that the only valid legal marriage contract could be one between a man and a woman. Baehr v. Miike challenged this principle, and became a ruling with the potential to rival the impact of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) or Roe v. Wade (1973).
- Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
- Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (1995).
- Bennis v. Michigan - Significance, Michigan Courts Disagree On Seizure Of Vehicle, Question Of Whether Constitutional Rights Violated, Petitioner Asserted Fifth Amendment Rights Violated
- Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes - Significance, The Events, Editorial Discretion, Or Government Censorship?, The Importance Of Public And Nonpublic Forums
- Baehr v. Miike - Same Sex Marriages
- Baehr v. Miike - Further Readings
- Baehr v. Miike - The Burden Of Proof Is On The State
- Baehr v. Miike - Both Sides Marshal Their Experts
- Baehr v. Miike - A Landmark Ruling--and A Reaction
- Baehr v. Miike - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias