Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 16:40:27 HST
From: ramsey@math.hawaii.edu (Tom Ramsey)
Subject: HAWAII SEPT. 26

		FINAL DAY OF BAEHR V. LEWIN, SEPT. 20

        The court room was packed as many people took a vacation day to witness
the closing arguments.  Deputy A. G. Rick Eichor went first with his closing
arguments, for about 24 minutes.  He maintained that the state has a compelling
interest "in promoting the optimal development of children", that  "children
do best when they have the personal involvement and material support of a
father and a mother"  and  this is the "single, simple premise of our case
and the single, simple premise of the marriage law."  Mr. Eichor did not
feel that Hawaii should begin a "grand social experiment" with same sex
marriage.   Two men and/or two women are not the same dyad as a family.  In
one of the most puzzling remarks made to date by Mr. Eichor, he maintained
that children born into a same sex union always have one natural parent and
one parent outside the union and the child is left without hope that mom and
dad may someday marry.  Mr. Eichor criticized the research presented, questioned
the motivation of the plaintiff's witnesses, and promoted the myth that marriage
is for procreation ("...the compelling stated interest that would legitimate
the ban against same sex marriage is the procreation of children under the
best possible circumstances").  "Generally all male/female couples can have
children and all same sex couples can not" [in Hawaii, procreation was removed
from the marriage statutes in 1984, as being discrimination against the 
elderly and the handicapped].  He ended with a completely scurrilous remark:
marriage rights for gays and lesbians would endanger society's power to
prohibit and regulate harmful behaviours such as prostitution, polygamy, and
incest.  This last possibility, backed by absolutely no testimony or
earlier discussion in court, became the headline for the home edition of
the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:  that the state says incest could be next!
        Dan Foley, attorney for the plaintiffs, had the final word.  Foley
admonished Mr. Eichor for comparing marriage with prostitution,
polygamy, and incest.  Foley said these are "...red herrings..." having
nothing to do with the case.  He then addressed the credibility and biases
of the four witnesses for the state.  Foley noted that two of the state's
witnesses comndemmed homosexuality, one state witness testified against the
field of psychology (in which he was alleged to be an expert), one state
witness was against the theory of evolution, etc.  According to Foley, the
undisputed data and testimony of the experts showed:
        1. gays, lesbians and same sex parents are fit and loving as
	   non-gay parents
        2. the sexual orientation of the parent, straight or gay, is not
           itself a determinant of optimal development; a successful, committed,
           loving relationship is
        3. gays and lesbians can and are allowed to adopt
        4. not the structure of the family  (1 mom 1 dad, 2 moms,etc) nor
           the biology of the parents is the determinant- the loving, nurturing
           enviroment is
        5. children of same sex couples should be supported to reach  their
           optimal development as are children of opposite sex parents
           (by the state, benefits, etc)
        6. there is no evidence that issuing marriage laws will have or has
           had an adverse effect on children
Foley finished by saying that
        1. the state should issue marriage liscences to same sex couples
	   because:
              a. it would bring legal recognition to the couples
              b. it would promote stability
              c. it would give equal rights and benefits
        2. children of same sex parents are harmed and denied rights
           because their parents are denied the right to marry
        3. procreation is not the only reason people get married; rights
           and benefits come to all, regardless if the persons procreate or have
           children
        4. there is no evidence in this case that marriage in Hawaii will
           harm the citizens of Hawaii
        5. this court cannot condone sex discrimination nor draw an
           invidious distinction of a class of citizens based on gender
        6. the court is not tasked with deciding what is the best marriage
           for Hawaii
        7. the court is not deciding what is the best family for Hawaii
           (gay, lesbian, extended family, single parent families, etc)
        8. this case is about sex discrimination- good people, law-abiding
           people, tax-paying people are being discriminated against
        9. our Hawaii constitution puts sex discrimination on the same
           plane as race discrimination (citing the overturned ban in Virginia)
       10. as Virginia failed to meets its heavy burden in Loving vs Va.,
           Mr. Eichor and the state failed to prove its burden
This is a simple matter of dscrimination and that no legal basis, nor social
circumstance (regarding children and families) can prove or substantiate
otherwise.



						Tom Ramsey
						h.e.r.m.p