1X
The central question is whether the Hawaii Constitution requires the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, if not, what the legislature should do about the legal and economic benefits that married couples receive exclusively. Dan Foley, the civil rights attorney who represented three same-sex couples in Baehr v. Lewin, explained that the Hawaii Supreme Court's 1993 majority ruling found the denial of marriage licenses to constitute sex discrimination under the state constitution, shifting to the state the burden of showing a compelling interest. Steve Michaels, Deputy Attorney General, argued that the court's gender-discrimination framing was legally incorrect and that, even accepting it, the state retained compelling interests—including procreation policy and the interstate recognition of marriages—as defenses. Kuumealoha Gomes, a Sexual Orientation Commissioner and member of the commission's five-member majority, maintained that the commission's tentative report found the denial of marriage benefits to same-sex couples to be a civil-rights violation. Jim Hochberg, one of the two dissenting commissioners, charged that the majority had entered its work with a predetermined conclusion and had refused to allow examination of public-policy grounds for not extending marriage benefits.
Transcript
Read or download the full transcript (.txt). Speaker labels were assigned automatically and may contain errors.
Companion newspaper commentaries
Commentaries by the guests, published in The Honolulu Advertiser around the broadcast.
