Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 13:19:30 HST
From: ramsey@math.hawaii.edu (Tom Ramsey)
Subject: HAWAII SEPT. 30

		HISTORIC HAWAII MARRIAGE TRIAL
		Summary Offered by Plaintiffs' Co-Counsels

		Dan Foley, Partington & Foley (526-9500)
		Evan Wolfson, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
				(1-88-314-6416)

OVERVIEW

The case:  Under the equal protection clause of the State's constitution,
the Hawaii Supreme Court found that denying marriage licenses to same-sex
couples is sex discrimination.  It remanded the case to lower court requiring
the State either show a "compelling reason," (not just any reason) for
this discrimination, or stop discriminating.

Burden of proof:  Rests solely on the defendant, the State of Hawaii.
Plaintiffs have no burden.

"Compelling reason:"  This is the highest burden of proof.

Trial setting:  Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, Judge Kevin S. C.
Chang, Sept. 10 - 20, 1996.

WEEK 1:

What the State Attempted to Show:  The State chose as its compelling justi-
fication for the discrimination in marriage the proposition that keeping
same-sex couples from civil marriage somehow helps children develop
"optimally."  The State also claimed that two biological parents are the
"best" for raising a child.

What the State's Evidence Actually Showed:
All State witnesses conceded that keeping same-sex couples from marrying
does nothing to help children of heterosexual families, while at the same
time hurting the children of same-sex families by denying them the legal
and economic protections, as well as the social support and stability,
that come with civil marriage.

The State's witnesses made further concessions in testimony by agreeing that:
1) same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt and raise children; 2) gay
men and lesbians raise happy, healthy and well adjusted children just as well
as heterosexual parents; 3) civil marriage brings important protections to
all types of families whether they have children or not; 4) civil marriage
would help the children of same-sex couples.

The State's psychological experts, Pruett and Merrill, agreed that the most
important aspects in optimal child development within any type of family
are the qualities [qualities underlined] of parenting---such as love,
nurturing, guidance, protection---not the parents' sexual orientation,
gender or biological relationship to the child, as asserted by the State.

WEEK 2:
What the Plaintiffs Needed to Show:  Plaintiffs had no burden of proof,
but nevertheless presented evidence which conclusively refuted the State's
claims.

What the Plaintiffs' Evidence Showed:
The Plaintiffs called four expert witnesses who, unlike the State's witness,
[unlike ....witnesses all underlined] are recognized by their peers and
colleagues as the leading national and Hawaii experts int their fields:

	Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D., University of Washington, sociologist 
	regarded as a leading national expert on family, couples, gender
	and sex; auth of American Couples; [American Couples underlined]
	Charlotte Patterson, Ph.D., University of Virginia, psychologist
	regarded as the leading national expert on the development of
	children, especially children of same-sex couples;
	David Brodzinsky, Ph.D., Rutgers University, research and clinical
	psychologist regarded as the nation's leading expert on adoption and
	and non-biological parenting;
	Robert James Bidwell, M.D., Director --- Dept. of Pediatrics,
	Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu;
	practicing pediatrician; University of Hawaii School of Medicine
	Professor; heads the Pacific's most comprehensive pediatric unit.

All of the plaintiffs' experts concurred with the State's witnesses that
the most important determinant in raising a happy, healthy and well adjusted
child is the quality [quality is underlined] of parenting the child receives
in her or his home --- not the parent's gender, sexual orientation or
biological relationship.

The plaintiffs' experts all agreed that marriage would promote the optimal
development of children in same-sex families just as it can for adoptive,
step-parent or biological families.

The plaintiff's experts all testified that marriage for same-sex couples would
strengthen the institution of marriage and society, as well as provide for the
optimal development of children in these homes, in direct contradiction to
the State's proposition.  They also saw no reason, based on their professional
opinions, why the State would deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

All the experts, whether testifying for the plaintiffs or State, agreed that
there are many reasons people marry other than for the purpose of having or
raising children.

All of the plaintiffs' experts rejected the State's claim that there is one
"best" type of family.  In their view, the claim is unsupported by the
evidence and offensive [offensive is underlined] to the many types of
families that exist in Hawaii and the nation.

					---transcribed for email by
						Tom Ramsey