1 minute read

Baehr v. Miike - Same Sex Marriages, The Burden Of Proof Is On The State, Both Sides Marshal Their Experts

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present

Plaintiffs

Ninia Baehr, Genora Dancel, Tammy Rodrigues, Antoinette Pregil, Pat Lagon, and Joseph Melillo

Defendant

Lawrence H. Miike, Director of Hawaii Department of Health

Plaintiffs' Claim

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

Judge

Kevin S. C. Chang, Judge of the First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii

Place

Honolulu, Hawaii

Date of Decision

3 December 1996

Decision

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.

Significance

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).

Related Cases

  • Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
  • Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (1995).

Additional topics