Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:49:23 -1000
From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice)
Subject: SA 272:  BAEHR V. MIIKE UPDATE

Aloha kakahiaka kakou.

Don't get too excited, as this update falls more under the heading of
"housekeepping" than anything else.

The Hawai`i Supreme Court has served notice that it will issue a decision
(Case No. 19765) on a 1995 request by eight Hawai`i House of Representative
members who sued to enjoin the state as defendants in Baehr v. Miike (yes,
I'm truly embarrassed to admit that we have some legislators in Hawai`i who
are so blindly stupid and bigoted).  This decision will be made without
hearing oral arguments, and the decision can be expected to be announced
next month (November '97).

FYI, those legislators are:

     Former <smirk> REP. BILLY SWAIN, D-12th 
          (North Kaua`i-East Maui)
     REP. EZRA KANOHO, D-13th 
          (Kapa`a-Lihu`e-Puhi)
     REP. DAVID STEGMAIER, D-15th 
          (Kalama Valley-Hawai`i Kai-Koko Head)
     REP. GENE WARD, R-16th (Plans to run for U.S. Congress)
          (`Aina Haina-Niu Valley-Mariner's Ridge)
     REP. FELIPE ABINSAY, JR., D-29th
          (Kalihi Wa`ena-Moanalua-Kapalama)
     REP. ROMY CACHOLA, D-30th
          (Kalihi Kai-Iwilei-Sand Island)
     REP. MICHAEL KAHIKINA, D-43rd
          (Nanakuli-Ma`ili-Wai`anae)
     REP. COLLEEN MEYER, R-46th
          (La`ie-Waikane-Waiahole)

There is still, as of this date, no timetable available regarding the
decision on the State's appeal of Judge Chang's December 1996 order to issue
marriage licenses to the three same-gendered couples (Case No. 20371).  To
be certain, same-gender marriage is currently legal in the State of Hawai`i,
but the state is not required to issue those licenses under the stay of
execution ordered by Judge Chang, during which time his decision is reviewed
by the Hawai`i Supreme Court.  

The high court could decide that it will not hear oral arguments (nor silent
ones, for that matter <grin>), and then issue a decision on the appeal
within a month, or it could announce that oral arguments will be heard, at
which time there could be a year lapse between the announcement the the
actual hearing.  

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants earlier this year filed appeals to
hopefully affect the date at which the decision was to be made.  

The plaintiffs, citing numerous delays requested by and granted to the
state, asked that the decision he made as soon as possible, and without
further delay.  

The defendant (the state) requested that the decision be postponed until
after the November 1998 election.  Naturally it follows that along with this
postponement goes the postponement of the issuance of same-gendered marriage
licenses.  (Yes, yet another source of embarrassment:  the state saying, in
effect, that it wants to appeal the circuit court's decision, but doesn't
want to know the outcome of that decision just yet <sigh>.)

At any rate, have a Happy Hallowe'en.

A hui hou,

Martin
 
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
                  --former-Vice President Dan Quayle
                       ~~~~~~
                  Fred and Martin,
           strangers before all but 16.7%
                    of the law.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~