Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 06:36:59 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: MAN QUESTIONS MICHIGAN's ROLE IN BAEHR V. MIIKE Aloha kakahiaka kakou. First and foremost, Mahalo Nui Loa to Mike Krause for this head's-up information and action. I will check on Tuesday with the Hawai`i AG about the alleged request to Nebraska, Michigan and other states, but I suspect that this might be the work of attorney Charles Cooper. Please do not hesitate to include lambda@aloha.net as a cc to any response to this story. Mahalo! The following comes to us via Scott who maintains a tlgb news broadcast service at leliorisen@aol.com. The following comes from Mike Krause. It is an excellent example of one person taking the time to confront the powers-that-be. He would also like to hear from others who may have contacted their own state's Attorneys General. You may contact Mike at MJK429269@aol.com. -- Scott Scott, Your posting a few weeks ago about the states that have filed briefs with the Hawaii Supreme Court in support of Hawaii's anti-gay marriage position got me wondering about my own state, Michigan, being on the list. Finally got around to checking it out today. I called the Michigan Attorney General's office in Lansing and asked for the Civil Rights Division. They told me that office was in Detroit and they gave me the number. The receptionist at Civil Rights transferred me to a staff lawyer, Mr. Johnson. I explained to him that I had heard that Michigan had filed a brief in support of the state of Hawaii's position against same-sex marriage. He said that he didn't know of any brief being filed and he was confident that they WOULDN'T take the position I had described. The receptionist had suggested I contact the Public Information Division in Lansing to get a definite answer, so I called them back. The woman in Lansing put me on hold for a couple minutes, then told me that the Attorney General (AG) did NOT file such a brief. I asked for her name so I could reference her and she immediately asked "WHO ARE YOU?" and did not give me her name. I gave her my name, where I was from, and told her I was a constituent of the Attorney General. She then said she would pass me to a press officer so I could get someone on the record. Instead of passing me along, she came back on the line after a few minutes and admitted (after checking) that it had "gotten by" them and indeed it turned out it WAS true that Michigan had filed an Amicus Brief with the Hawaii Supreme Court. She then threw me a curve and transferred me to the Solicitor General who approved the brief. The Solicitor General (SG) said there were "significant public policy considerations" that the Hawaii Supreme Court should consider. He pointed out that Michigan wasn't taking a position on the actual case, Baehr vs. Miike, but only supporting the belief that contrary to what the Hawaii Court ruled, there WERE "significant public policy considerations" in the case. At first the SG couldn't remember who actually drafted the brief. But then he looked it up and said the State of Nebraska, at the request of Hawaii, wrote the brief and circulated it among the states asking for states to sign on. The Michigan SG thought it "accurately stated" the case and he thought it was "appropriate" so he made a recommendation in favor of the brief and sent it up the chain of command. He couldn't say for sure if Attorney General Frank Kelley (a Democrat) had personally signed off on it, but he was pretty sure he had. I asked if he consulted the Civil Rights Division before making the decision and he said no. He said since the brief wasn't taking a position on the actual case, he didn't consult Civil Rights. When I asked for a copy of the brief, he said all he had was the initial draft that Nebraska had originally sent him. I asked if he didn't think he should see the final document before he approved it and he said usually the only things changed in briefs like this were corrections of "typos". In answer to my request, he gave me the phone number of the AG office in Nebraska and said he would send me a copy of the draft brief he had. He admitted that even though it wasn't unheard of, it was still unusual for Michigan to file such a brief in a state Supreme Court. They usually wait until a case is before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also admitted that he hadn't read the Hawaii Constitution, but again felt there were "significant public policy considerations" involved, and that is why he approved the brief. Finally, I called Mr. Johnson back at Civil Rights and informed him that Michigan HAD filed the brief. He thanked me for the information and stated that he thought a case like this should have been handled by the Civil Rights Division. I agreed. Has anyone else from a state that joined in the brief contacted their Attorney General to find out why they did it? I'd be interested to know. Take care, Mike Krause ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Marriage has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." --Loving v. Virginia (1967) (via Bob Summersgill) ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~