Throwing Rice in Paradise A HAWAIIAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE AFFECTS GAY COUPLES EVERYWHERE by Austin Graham Charlotte Patterson, U.Va. Associate Professor of Psychology photo by Brett Lider "Have you ever wanted to take a honeymoon in Hawaii?" Of course, everybody at the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Union (LGBU) meeting raised their hands, including me, in response to U.Va. faculty member Charlotte Patterson's question. Wouldn't you? If you're like me, when you think of Hawaii, you think of beaches and volcanoes and sunburn, not to mention good standing as one of the most romantic couple hangouts in the world. Yes, Hawaii has everything you'd want in an exotic honeymoon, with a special bonus: the most important legal precedent of 1996 that you may not have heard of. If you don't know about Baehr v. Miike yet, then it's only a matter of time. In a word, this ongoing court battle is all about marriage, one of those unspoken and inexorable rights of man that we've always assumed we've had. But this one concerns same-sex marriage, and it may interest you to know that, despite our more "tolerant," "open," and "accepting" 90s culture, none of the states in the Union are under any legal obligation to recognize same-sex marriages; the Virginia legislature has ruled that the state will not do so. It's easy to see where the conflict exists, promising to make civil rights history. This brings us to Charlotte Patterson, whose goal at the LGBU's March 27th meeting was to educate those in attendance on the particulars of this case in reference to one very basic and important point: "Our U.S. Constitution regards the right to marry as a fundamental right. The question in front of the court in this kind of case is whether fundamental rights are for everyone or only for some people." Patterson's knowledge of Baehr v. Miike is first-hand; she served last fall as an expert witness for the plaintiffs and, thanks to Court TV and intense local interest in the case, is our Virginia celebrity in Hawaii. This is not by any means the first same-sex marriage trial ever, but it has enjoyed more success and publicity than others. So what happened? After applying and being rejected for Hawaii licenses, one gay and two lesbian couples sued the state for the legal right to marry. The denial hadn't come under any written law, for nowhere in the Hawaii statutes was it explicitly stated that homosexual couples couldn't marry. The certificate simply wasn't given to them. The couples protested, citing discrimination; and the case began. The trial received increasing attention and outside involvement as it made its way to the Hawaii Supreme Court, and after the case was heard, the highest court in Hawaii delivered this verdict: denying marriage to homosexuals is a mistake unless there is a "compelling reason." The case was thrown back to a lower court to examine the issue again. The state argued, as its primary point, that same-sex marriage would harm children. "When the state of Hawaii decided to defend this case by arguing that same-sex marriage would be bad for children," said Patterson, "they immediately implicated a lot of research that's gone on for 20 years that I have published reviews of and have contributed to with my own original research. I was originally contacted ... to explain what the research evidence in the social sciences really has revealed about children of lesbian and gay parents. That evidence is fairly clear, and says that there are very few differences, if any, between children of lesbian and gay parents and children of heterosexual marriages after 20 years of research. Dozens of studies and hundreds of children have been interviewed ... knowing that, they invited me to come and talk about the evidence." This evidence -- supported in court briefs by social scientists highly respected by both sides -- was nearly impossible to dispute and left the prosecution justifying their case in terms of ideals. Basically, they argued that although same-sex marriage isn't necessarily bad for children, a stable man-woman relationship is best. Patterson had this to say about such testimony from one of the state's expert witnesses: "The law is not about what is ideal, it's about what's permissible ... I think that the gist of his testimony was that while one thing or another thing might be ideal, in reality many different kinds of parents can bring up children successfully, among them gay and lesbian parents." Once the point that homosexual marriages harm children is negated, anyone can see what moral, legal, and philosophical points would arise, all of which seem to favor the plaintiffs' case. For example: Marriage provides over one thousand concrete benefits to couples and their children, including everything from health insurance and inheritance to hunting licenses. The children, whom the law claims to be protecting, would obviously be better off with such benefits. If homosexual marriages are not proven to harm children, then there is little reason to rule such unions out. There is no legislation denying marriage to poor couples, interracial couples, or single parents, family structures that differ from our national "norm." It is a widely-held view that divorces pose a real threat to a child's well being, but there is no movement to end that. In light of such compelling points, it's not surprising that the verdict in the case favored the plaintiffs. This is only the first step in what will be years of debate as legislatures try to strengthen their laws to counteract, or at least delay, the inevitable consequences of this verdict. Take, for example, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed this summer, which allows states to refrain from recognizing homosexual marriages performed outside of the state borders. Now that the issue has been thrown to the states, some are ready to ban these unions outright. Even though this is a groundbreaking case, a great many people, including students at U.Va., don't know about the Hawaii same-sex marriage trial. Knowledge, according to Patterson, is an important first step: "I think that many people are unaware of this fact [the illegality of homosexual marriage], and even people who are aware of it may be unaware of what the costs are for lesbian and gay couples and families. Well-intentioned, well- informed heterosexuals who haven't encountered this issue may be surprised by the costs sustained as a result of this kind of discrimination. I think that one of the things students can do that is really helpful is to inform people ... a good way to begin remedying injustice is to make it known." The courts have spoken, and now the movement for legality is going to have to plow through a flurry of legislation enacted by people who have the heebie-jeebies about homosexual marriage. But if knowledge really is power, then we can start to do something about it right now.

back to Decweb main