University of Georgia

Terry College of Business
 

In December, Judge Kevin S.C. Chang of the First Circuit Court of Hawaii handed down a decision in the celebrated case brought by two lesbian couples and one gay male couple who charged that the state had unconstitutionally denied them applications for marriage licenses. In deciding in their favor, the judge produced an astonishing document, defending the rights of lesbians and gay men both to marry and to rear children. We’ve summarized part of it to show that sanity is still possible in the present climate of right-wing demagoguery, and to recognize Judge Chang for his thoughtful decision:

Defendant presented insufficient evidence and failed to prove any adverse consequences to the public fisc [state treasury] resulting from same-sex marriage.

Defendant presented insufficient evidence and failed to establish or prove any adverse impacts to the State of Hawaii or its citizens resulting from the refusal of other jurisdictions to recognize Hawaii same-sex marriages or from application of the federal constitutional provision which requires other jurisdictions to give full faith and credit recognition to Hawaii same-sex marriages.

Defendant presented insufficient evidence and failed to prove the legal significance of the institution of traditional marriage and the need to protect it as a fundamental structure in society.

There is diversity in the structure and configuration of families. In Hawaii, and elsewhere, children are being raised by their natural parents, single parents, stepparents, grandparents, adopted parents, hanai [guardian] parents, foster parents, gay and lesbian parents, and same-sex couples.

The evidence presented by Plaintiffs and Defendant establishes that the single most important factor in the development of a happy and well-adjusted child is the nurturing relationship between parent and child.

Gay and lesbian parents and same-sex couples have the potential to raise children that are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted.

The available scientific data, studies, and clinical experience presented at trial suggest that children of gay and lesbian parents and same-sex couples tend to adjust and do develop in a normal fashion.

Defendant has not proved that allowing same-sex marriage will result in significant differences in the development of outcomes of children raised by gay or lesbian parents and same-sex couples, as compared to children raised by different-sex couples or their biological parents. Defendant’s expert agreed in pertinent part that gay and lesbian parents "are doing a good job" raising children and most important, "the kids are turning out just fine."

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, if same-sex marriage is allowed, the children being raised by gay or lesbian parents and same-sex couples may be assisted, because they may obtain certain protections and benefits that come with or become available as a result of marriage.

In Hawaii, and elsewhere, same-sex couples have successful, loving, and committed relationships.

In Hawaii, and elsewhere, people marry for a variety of reasons, including: (1) having or raising children; (2) stability and commitment; (3) emotional closeness; (4) intimacy and monogamy; (5) the establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship; (6) personal significance; (7) recognition by society; and (8) certain legal and economic protections, benefits, and obligations. In Hawaii, and elsewhere, gay men and lesbian women share this same mix of reasons for wanting to be able to marry.

Ms. Magazine, March/April 1997