F r o n t   L i n e Legal Love by Liz Nichols Think back to those golden days of recess on the second-grade jungle gym, when classmates who didn't completely subscribe to the principle of "cooties" were mercilessly teased with a sing-song chant: "Judy and Johnny, sitting in a tree ... K-I-S-S-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage ..." Wait ... hold on. Is that really the way a relationship progresses? We thought so in elementary school, and I'd wager that most university students wouldn't modify the formula much today. Though they were hurled with barely a passing thought, those taunting lyrics affirmed a valuable and deeply-held principle: love naturally culminates in a recognized lifelong commitment. In December of 1990, three couples applied for marriage licenses from Hawaii's Department of Health. They were denied. The reverberations of this simple bureaucratic action have escalated into an intense national debate about the meaning of love and the limits of equality. The couples, you see, were of the same sex, and they sued the State of Hawaii, asserting their right to form a committed and loving union with their respective partners. In May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in their case, Baehr v. Lewin, that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the Hawaii state constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination. The Hawaii Supreme Court returned the case to the trial court, directing it to examine the state's marriage statute, applying "strict-scrutiny." This requirement forces the state to meet the most rigorous legal standard to justify its discrimination: it must demonstrate a "compelling state interest" in prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. The state was unsuccessful. Judge Kevin Chang's 1996 ruling found that the State of Hawaii had failed to show "any compelling reason why lesbian and gay couples should be denied the freedom to marry." Though Chang stayed enforcement of the ruling until the state's appeal could be heard and ruled out by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the chances that a compelling doubt can be established are estimated by law experts to be slim at best. Susan Baker, editor of the Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, is optimistic that there will be at least a window of opportunity for same-sex couples in the very near future: "There's basically no chance that the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling is going to be overturned ... [Judge Chang] was clearly utilizing the standards of strict scrutiny that were originally applied to the case. They'd essentially have to overturn their first decision." The local significance of what is undeniably a landmark case in American law is underscored by the personal involvement of Charlotte Patterson, a professor in the university's psychology department. Patterson has gained notoriety as one of the nation's foremost experts on the mental development of children of same-sex couples and gave key testimony in 1993's Baehr vs. Miike case. The defense asserted that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not "similarly situated" with respect to marriage, and that the state has a responsibility to uphold the "moral values" of its people. Dr. Patterson testified that not only is a biological relationship between parent and child not essential in the raising of a healthy child, but also that gay and lesbian same-sex couples can be fit and loving parents. Patterson believes the state defense had a difficult case to prove; the argument that only heterosexual, married couples provide a suitable environment for the raising of children is "very difficult to sustain." In focusing on the tenuous link between parental fitness and "traditional" married male/female families, the defense alienated not only same-sex couples but also other non-traditional parents, including single, divorced, and adoptive parents. Patterson hopes that a positive ruling will broaden the public's scope with regard to family issues. "People will discover that the sky will not fall" if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Here at U.Va., members of the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Union (LGBTU) and the National Organization for Women (NOW) have mobilized in support of same-sex marriage this week, urging people to symbolically "Tie the Knot" for marriage rights. The events coincide with the February 12 National Freedom to Marry Day, and will pepper the Lawn, UTS stops, buildings, and barren trees of U.Va. with a profusion of knotted ribbons and yarn. Professor Charlotte Patterson will speak at NOW's weekly Thursday meeting at 6 p.m. in Minor 130, sharing her first-hand experiences of the Baehr v. Miike litigation in a speech entitled "Honeymoon in Hawaii." NOW President Jessie Gilliam hopes that the event will elicit conversation among those who hadn't considered love in the context of same-sex relationships: "Tie the Knot at U.Va. is going to be an effective display because people everywhere will be reminded on Valentine's Day that there are some people who can't get married." LGBTU President Terrilynn Platt emphasizes the legal significance of the ruling: "Everything that comes automatically with a legal marriage, you have to work twice as hard to get as a same-sex couple. You still can't get things like health coverage, and what you can get is often ignored, despite the legal paperwork. It's illogical that two people who want to spend their lives together shouldn't have the same benefits as other couples." NOW and the LGBTU have a challenging battle ahead of them. Even if the measure passes and validates the commitment of gays and lesbians in the state of Hawaii, the rest of America will almost certainly resist the measure and its assertions. Work and family-related travel and federal benefits issues, taken for granted by most heterosexual couples, will bring a new plethora of dilemmas to the forefront of the national psyche. Will the IRS recognize tax returns filed jointly by two women? Could two men conceivably be arrested in the state of Georgia (which, like several states, outlaws the practice of sodomy) under the assumption that they were having sex as a married couple? Could a woman receive the federal benefits available to her female spouse? Could the husband of a dying man be barred from hospital visitation under the premise that he is not an immediate family member? Regardless, American dynamism might someday elevate the mainland to the tolerant standards of the Aloha State. If the movement progresses by the same degree as the civil rights movement of the 1960s your children might someday be teased with a less familiar refrain: "Joey and Johnny, sitting in a tree ..."

back to Decweb main