|| News ||
Page 1 of 1

Gay Couples Sue Hawaii


Lingle x390 (Getty) I Advocate.com

Six same-sex couples have sued the state of Hawaii seeking the equivalent rights and responsibilities of marriage, just weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill passed by the state legislature.

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii filed suit on Thursday and represent four lesbian couples and two gay male couples in the state; two of the six couples have children.

The suit does not seek marriage rights, as state voters approved in 1998 a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Rather, it seeks equal rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples who currently are offered limited protections known as reciprocal beneficiary arrangements, available to adults who cannot marry under state law.

“The Hawaii constitution, like every state constitution, has an equality guarantee,” said Lambda Legal national marriage project director Jennifer C. Pizer. “Voters changed the constitution in 1998 with respect to marriage, but the legislature and the court specifically underscored that the equality guarantee only changed in regards to marriage.”

Current protections offered for reciprocal beneficiaries form a confusing patchwork that leaves many gay and lesbian couples unsure of their rights, Pizer said.

According to the legal complaint, many private employers defer to the state's definition of marital status when conferring benefits, which can result in the denial of health insurance, for example, to partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gays are also denied access to family court upon dissolution of a relationship, where issues such as alimony, property division, and child custody are addressed.

After Lingle’s veto of a bill that would have granted comprehensive rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples — and ended state-sanctioned second-class citizenship for Hawaii's gays and lesbians — “It’s time to pose the question to the state: What is the excuse for withholding these other important protections?” Pizer said.

In selecting the plaintiffs in this suit, Pizer said the legal team sought “to illustrate a range of different issues that are legally relevant and to show a breadth of people in the community in terms of age and financial status, people who have different needs depending on the stage of life that they’re at.”

The Hawaii lawsuit comes amid a flurry of legal activity on state and federal levels regarding the rights of same-sex couples. Last week the ACLU filed suit on behalf of seven gay couples seeking domestic-partnership rights in Montana, which has a constitutional ban on gay marriage. A federal judge in Massachusetts earlier this month struck down a critical portion of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, while another federal judge in San Francisco is soon expected to issue a decision in a challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative that stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry.

The Montana case is similar to the Hawaii suit in that it asks the court to enforce equality guarantees as set forth in the state constitution. Where they differ in part, Pizer said, is that Hawaii has some protections, however limited, available to same-sex couples, while Montana offers none. "Hawaii has long been a battleground on issues affecting same-sex couples. This [suit] is a continuation of work that Lambda has been deeply involved in for two decades," she said.

Plaintiff Sean Smith, a 32-year-old attorney in Honolulu, said he and his partner of five years, Kale Taylor, had thought Lingle would have allowed the civil unions bill to go into effect without signing or vetoing the legislation.

The couple, who became reciprocal beneficiaries in 2006, had begun talking about a ceremony and were shocked when Lingle decided to veto the bill, Smith said. “There was a little bit of irony and a little bit of hurt mixed together — people are always asking us when we’re getting married,” he said.

The case is Young v. Lingle. Attorneys representing the six couples include Pizer and Tara Borelli of Lambda and Lois Perrin, Daniel Gluck, and Laurie A. Temple of the ACLU.

The complaint is available here on Lambda Legal's website.

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Facebook. Page 1 of 1
Reader Comments
  • Name: Candi Kane
    Date posted: 7/31/2010 10:51:08 PM
    Hometown: Honolulu

    Comment:

    @Lance. In all fairness, Baehr v Lewin was filed in 1990 and it was quite novel at the time. The movement thought it was too early. Was it? Depends on one's perpective. Baehr v Lewin served as a catalyst for the marriage equality movement but also the anti-Gay backlash....the 96 Federal DOMA, and the 1998 Hawaii Constitutional amendment. 20 years after that 1990 filing, same-sex couples in Hawaii still don't have equal rights. Also you fail to point out that while Lambda Legal did not initially join Baehr v Lewin, it did join as co-counsel a few years later. What is there to be gained by being stuck about something that happened in 1990. How about focusing on the current reality. And why didn't Bill file a case like this after the 1999 final ruling (Baehr v Miike)? It took 11 years for a new case to be developed and Lambda Legal has been the primary mover. Let's thank them instead of nitpick over something from 20 years ago.

  • Name: Andrew
    Date posted: 7/30/2010 2:20:50 AM
    Hometown: Sacramento, CA

    Comment:

    IOWA: THE NEW HAWAII!

  • Name: Lance B
    Date posted: 7/29/2010 7:24:19 PM
    Hometown: Honolulu

    Comment:

    I'm glad to see Lambda Legal and ACLU finally taking this on - but I'd be remiss in pointing out that when the original Hawaii equality suit was started in the early 1990's by Bill Woods and others - they declined to be involved and in some other areas even worked against the effort under the reasoning that "it was too soon". Hoping for the best this time around. We tried to warn the State of Hawaii this would happen if HB444 was not enacted.

  • Name: FakeName
    Date posted: 7/29/2010 3:35:10 PM
    Hometown: Anytown

    Comment:

    @Mark: While "separate but equal" never is and while being denied "marriage" is odious, you have to understand that under the state constitutional scheme in place in those states that bar same-sex marriage, this is the only available strategy through the courts.

  • Name: Kahulele
    Date posted: 7/29/2010 3:30:41 PM
    Hometown: HI

    Comment:

    Kyle, our politically ambitious Republican Governor vetoed the civil unions bill that took the Legislature 12 years to pass! The only thing thinner than rational thought when it comes to gays and lesbians here in Hawaii is the '"aloha spirit". Most of the opposition is based on religion with the usual suspects in the front - Roman Catholic Bishop Silva, the fundamentalist Evangelicals/Pentecostals and the Mormons. Gay rights in Hawaii provokes a very ugly reaction. The encryption code I have to type in for this comment is "unequal paradises" - that fits Hawaii for sure! HAWAII IS HOSTILE TO GAY PEOPLE. Go vacation somewhere else.

  • Name: Mark
    Date posted: 7/29/2010 11:37:34 AM
    Hometown: WF

    Comment:

    While I applaud all law suits on the behalf of born gay/lesbian citizens/taxpayers, asking for separate and unequal status under the law is a slippery slope for many reasons. First, the US Constitution guarantees equal civil rights for all. The half of the states in this country who amended their state consitutions to deny born gay/lesbians the civil right of civil marriage are in violation of the US Constitution, as is DOMA (despite what Kagan believes). Second, even if these cases are won, those states will simply pass a ballot initiative to change their state constitutions to deny civil union and domestic partnership (as some states have already done) again in violation of the US Constitution, which makes the majority voting on the civil rights of the minority illegal. Finally, as NJ proved, civil union and domestic partnerships are not civil marriage. Principalities, businesses, and hospitals do not honor them. Marriage-only benefits are the norm. Our only hope is that one of the r

  • Name: Kyle
    Date posted: 7/29/2010 11:08:12 AM
    Hometown: California

    Comment:

    Seems like a new and very smart tactic. Not challenging marriage but simply demanding the rights that come along with it. Health insurance, visitation rights, etc. I doubt the bigots can come up with an even thinly guised reason to deny those things.



Don't Miss
  • Best of Broadway Smash: Why You Will Love It

    Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, two of the producers of NBC’s new critically acclaimed musical series, explain why the backstage drama of creating a musical about Marilyn Monroe has mass appeal and why big stars like Anjelica Huston, Uma Thurman, Bernadette Peters, and Nick Jonas were eager to appear in it.

  • Best of Broadway How Broadway Does a Flea Market

    Find out why actress Kathleen Chalfant calls the annual Flea Market and Grand Auction in Times Square "the most glamorous flea market you've ever seen." It raised half a million dollars to fight HIV/AIDS.

  • Travel Slideshow Flag Gayest Cities in America, 2012

    It's no secret that megalopolises New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles have robust LGBT life — and we've even heard tell of little queer hoods like the Castro and P-Town. This isn't that list.

 
 
Advocate Subscribe Promo Banner 300x50
 
Follow Us Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterSubscribe to our RSS feedsDownload our app
Facebook Activity
 
COVER 1055 X135 | ADVOCATE.COM
Today's Headlines