SUMMARY: There's plenty of disappointment about the Hawai'i Supreme Court's decision against same-gender marriage, but there' also lots of hope for the future.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court's long-awaited December 9 ruling marks the last major chapter in the controversial long-running "Baehr" case. With a unanimous decision that the passage of a 1998 ballot initiative authorizing the legislature to amend the state constitution to restrict legal marriage to one man and one woman rendered earlier judgments moot, the justices upheld a ban on marriage licenses for same-gender couples. At the same time they affirmed that the state constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and may have left the door open for gay and lesbian couples to win every substantive benefit of marriage in the future. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the high court's ruling also rejected the first District Court's award of court costs to the couples.

Gay plaintiff Joseph Melillo, who had hoped to marry his partner Pat Lagon, told the Associated Press that, "It's very difficult to see how they arrived at this decision. It's really a cop-out."

Dan Foley, the non-gay Honolulu attorney who represented the plaintiffs through the lengthy case at considerable personal cost, said, "After nine years of litigation, this ruling comes a disappointment, but litigation is going to continue, and we think that all rights, short of the issuance of marriage licenses, will be available to same-sex couples in the State of Hawai'i. It will now be up to the Legislature to act."

The Hawai'i Supreme Court attributed its position to the successful 1998 ballot initiative that authorized the state legislature to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to "opposite-sex couples," as the justices agreed that "The passage of the amendment placed [the 1994 state law against gay and lesbian marriages] on new footing," "taking the statute out of the ambit of the equal protection clause of the Hawai'i Constitution."

Referring to the ballot initiative, Evan Wolfson, head of Lambda's Marriage Project and co-counsel in the case for the last few years, said, "Raw power politics and the fierce sustained campaign of our opponents prevented us from achieving full equality in this century. Even so, this case has left us in a transformed position."

Kelly Rosati, director of Hawai'i Family Forum, a group which came to prominence in the campaign for the 1998 ballot initiative, told the "Honolulu Advertiser" that, "This is a great day for the people of Hawai'i and the institution of marriage. ... It is very good to finally have this issue behind us. Now the people of Hawai'i can focus on strengthening the institution of marriage as we know it as we move into the new millennium."

Also active in the campaign for the ballot initiative was Concerned Women for America of Hawai'i. The national group headed by Beverly LaHaye issued a statement from national spokesperson Rita Thompson that, "We thank God for the many people and resources He brought together to make citizens aware of the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage. The Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling is a culmination of these efforts, and we are grateful that they did not attempt to change what is natural, traditional and foundational to our society."

Long-time anti-gay campaigner Mike Gabbard, chair of Hawaii's Alliance for Traditional Marriage, told the Associated Press, "Thank you to the Hawai'i Supreme Court for affirming what we've known all along -- that marriage, by God's definition, is between opposite-sex couples."

The national Family Research Council issued a statement from its senior director of cultural studies Robert Knight that, "The Hawai'i Supreme Court at long last affirmed the will of the people to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Contrary to pro-homosexuality activists' rhetoric, marriage is not a construct of man that can be retooled and manipulated, but an institution established by God and protected through 6,000 years of human history. The voters of the Aloha State expressed their support for traditional marriage in 1998 by approving an amendment to the state constitution. The state Supreme Court, which precipitated the crisis almost seven years ago, listened to the overwhelming opinion of the people rather than the views of a loud minority."

Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the national gay and lesbian Human Rights Campaign, which played a key role in fund-raising in opposition to the ballot initiative, said, "Constitutions are and always have been about protecting vulnerable minorities from the popular whim of majorities. The Hawai'i court has made their Constitution a casualty of popular prejudices." HRC's communications director David Smith said, "All the court said was that same-sex marriage is politically unpopular. The court does not dispute that those denied same-sex marriage licenses are subject to irrational and unjustifiable discrimination. We agree with the Hawai'i courts that there is no legitimate reason to deny same-sex marriage other than prejudice."