Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 06:03:41 -1000
From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice)
Subject: RE: Baehr v. Miike, AmCuBr 09:  State of Nebraska, et al.

Aloha kakahiaka kakou.

Wanted to share with you (got the author's permission, of course) the
following.  It is in response to the brief filed by the 11 states (which by
the way, was joined by Utah last week).  Dave worked with "Maine Won't
Discriminate."



Dear Martin,

Just a few thoughts on these briefs being filed with the court ...

As both a gay male and an incurable romantic, I look forward to the day when
Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriages. If this comes to pass, and if I lived
in Hawaii and got married, this is what I would do:

Despite DOMA, I would file a joint federal tax return with my spouse and
steadfastly refuse to check the "single" box. I would refuse to recognize
the federal government's failure to accept my marriage, since marriage is
governed at the state level. After all, you would not be lying on your
federal return. As a matter of fact, it would be a lie to check the "single"
box and sign the return :-)

When I suggested this on Maine GayNet, a lawyer in Maine protested and said
that would be an act of civil disobedience. Heaven forfend! Why is it that
we admire certain acts of civil disobedience, like the Boston Tea Party, and
view other acts as despicable? I think any act of civil disobedience is
totally appropriate if it is sincere and non-violent. Simply put, if I were
legally married in Hawaii, I would refuse to recognize any jurisdiction's
invalidation of my marriage.

How ironic that all sorts of states are passing their little DOMA laws,
claiming that Hawaii has no right to meddle in their states' marriage laws;
these same states turn around and file briefs with the court in Hawaii to
try to meddle in Hawaii's affairs. They try to make it sound like they are
concerned about Hawaii's laws being respected nationwide. Frankly, they do
not care in the least about Hawaii. They are driven solely by animus toward
gay people and by their own bigotry.

Let's say that Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage effective 1 January 1998.
Hawaii should simultaneously make it clear that, effective the same date,
Hawaii would refuse to recognize any marriage performed in a state that did
not recognize all marriages performed in Hawaii. Heterosexuals have always
felt so smug that their marriages would be recognized in all states. You
would start to see heterosexual couples protest to their respective state
governments because their own state governments had provoked this mess by
refusing to recognize Hawaii's sovereignty in the area of its own marriage
laws. Even couples who never planned to travel to Hawaii would feel
unsettled because their marriages would no longer be sacrosanct throughout
the nation.

Just wanted to share these ideas with you, Martin. Thanks for all the news
you provide. I have donated to Marriage Project Hawaii and will continue to
do so. I proudly wear in this small Maine town my T-shirt proclaiming that
"I DO Support the Freedom to Marry - Marriage Project Hawaii."

David


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  "You can't put a cost . . . on something that is
  tantamount to civil rights."
                           --Governor Ben Cayetano
                        ~~~~~
                   Fred and Martin
                      24 years,
                yet strangers before
                       the law
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~