Back to Same Sex Marriage: Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law [Folder 2] [2]
Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
158702138
label
Same Sex Marriage: Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law [Folder 2] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
158702138
contentType
document
title
Same Sex Marriage: Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law [Folder 2] [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Counsel to the President (Clinton Administration)
Marvin Krislov's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
158702138
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7408730-20130028F-003-013-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
86559ff8c7623b4c
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0028-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Counsel Office
Series/Staff Member:
Marvin Krislov
Subseries:
Steve Neuwirth
OA/ID Number:
8190
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Same Sex Marriage: Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law [Folder 2] [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
113
3
9
2
Appendix D-1
B. UNIVERSAL COMPREHENSIVE
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.B. NO.
EIGHTEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1996
STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. The Hawaii Revised Statutes is amended by adding
a new chapter to be appropriately designated and to read as
follows:
:
"CHAPTER
:
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
S -1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to create a
way to recognize committed relationships of people and the right
:
to identify the partners with whom they share their lives as
I
members of each other's immediate family.
)
S
-2 Findings. Domestic partners live together in the
i
context of a committed family relationship. However, they are
! often denied public and private-sector benefits, because they
3 cannot provide state certified proof of their relationship.
!
The State of Hawaii finds that domestic partners comprise a
; percentage of households within this jurisdiction that is not
i insignificant. Domestic partners are often subject to marital
139
Page 2
H.B. NO.
1 status discrimination in employment, housing, and public
2 accommodations. The enactment of this registration section is a
3 means of attempting to eliminate this discrimination.
4
S -3 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter:
5
"Basic living expenses" means basic food and shelter. It
6 includes any other cost, such as medical care, if some or all of
7 the cost is paid as a benefit to one or both partners because
8 they have registered as domestic partners under this section.
9
"Declaration of domestic partnership" means a statement in a
10 form issued by the director that declares the intent of two
11 people to enter into a valid domestic partnership contract. By
12 signing it, two people swear under penalty of perjury that they
13 meet the requirements for a valid domestic partnership contract.
14
"Director" means the director of health.
15
"Domestic partners" means two adults who are parties to a
16 valid domestic partnership contract and meet the requisites for a
17 valid domestic partnership contract as defined in section
-4.
18
"Joint responsibility" means that each partner agrees to
19 provide for the other's basic living expenses while the domestic
20 partnership is in effect if the partner is unable to provide for
21 himself or herself. It does not mean that the partners need
22 contribute equally or jointly to basic living expenses. Anyone
23 to whom these expenses are owed can enforce the responsibility
24 established by this chapter.
140
Page 3
H.B. NO.
"Live together" means that two people share the same place
to live. It is not necessary that the legal right to possess the
place be in both of their names. Two people may live together
even if one or both have additional places to live. Domestic
partners do not cease to live together if one leaves the shared
place but intends to return.
S
-4 Requisites of a valid domestic partnership contract.
In order to make a valid domestic partnership contract it shall
be necessary that the parties shall:
(1) Live together;
(2) Consider themselves to be members of each other's
immediate family;
(3) Agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic
living expenses;
(4) Neither be married nor a member of another domestic
partnership;
(5) Not be related by blood in a way that would prevent
them from being married to each other under chapter
572;
(6) Each be at least eighteen years old;
(7) Each shall be competent to enter into a contract; and
(8) Each sign a declaration of domestic partnership as
provided for in section
-5.
141
Page 4
H.B. NO.
1
S -5 Establishing a domestic partnership. Two persons,
2 who meet the criteria set out in section -4, may establish a
3 domestic partnership by presenting a signed notarized declaration
4 of domestic partnership to the director, who shall file it and
5 give the partners a certificate of domestic partnership showing
6 that the declaration was filed in the names of the parties who
7 shall be known as "domestic partners".
8
S -6 Rights and obligations. Upon the issuance of a
9 certificate of domestic partnership by the director, the parties
10 named in the certificate shall have the same rights and
11 obligations under the law that are conferred on spouses in a
12 marriage relationship under Chapter 572. A "domestic partner"
13 shall be included in any definition or use of the terms "spouse",
14 "family", "immediate family", or "dependent" as those terms are
15 used throughout the law.
16
S -7 Dissolution of domestic partnerships. The family
17 court shall have jurisdiction over the dissolution of domestic
18 partnerships. The dissolution of domestic partnerships shall
19 follow the same procedures and be subject to the same substantive
20 rights and obligations that are involved in the dissolution of
21 marriage under chapter 572.
22
S -8 Records and Fees. The director shall keep a record
23 of all declarations. The director shall set the amount of the
24 filing fee for declarations, but in no case shall the fee be
142
Page 5
H.B. NO.
higher than the fee for a marriage license. The fees charged
shall cover the State's costs of administering this section.
S
-9 Preemption. This chapter shall supersede any state
law, or political subdivision ordinance to the contrary.
$
-10 Private solemnization not required. Nothing in this
chapter shall be construed to require any religious organization
to solemnize a domestic partnership that does not recognize a
domestic partner relationship within their ideology; provided
that any rights and obligations of domestic partners are not
obstructed or violated. "
SECTION 2. Section 368-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
"$368-1 Purpose and intent. The legislature finds and
declares that the practice of discrimination because of race,
color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
including domestic partnership, national origin, ancestry, or
disability in employment, housing, public accommodations, or
access to services receiving state financial assistance is
against public policy. It is the purpose of this chapter to
provide a mechanism which provides for a uniform procedure for
the enforcement of the State's discrimination laws. It is the
legislature's intent to preserve all existing rights and remedies
under such laws."
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Act, or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
143
Page 6
H.B. NO.
1 invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of
2 the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision
3 or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are
4 severable.
5
SECTION 4. This Act does not affect rights and duties that
6 matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were
7 begun, before its effective date.
8
SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
9
10
INTRODUCED BY:
144
Appendix D-2
A. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT MARRIAGE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.B. NO.
EIGHTEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1996
STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 5, OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, TO AMEND THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE RELATING TO SAME SEX
MARRIAGES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. The purpose of this Act is to propose an
amendment to Article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the
State of Hawaii to clarify that same sex marriages are not
constitutionally protected and to define marriage as a legal
relationship between a male and a female.
SECTION 2. Article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the
State of Hawaii is amended to read as follows:
"DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 5. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal
protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the
:
person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise
;
thereof because of race, religion, sex or ancestry.
Nothing in this section or any other section of this
Constitution shall be interpreted to create a constitutional
145
Page 2
H.B. NO.
1 right to same-sex marriages in order to reserve marriage as a
2 legal relationship between a man and a woman as husband and wife
3 which has been sanctioned by the State. Marriage and its
4 requisites may be subject to reasonable regulation by the State."
5
SECTION 3. The question to be printed on the ballot shall
6 be as follows:
7
"Shall the Due Process And Equal Protection Clause be
8
amended to clarify that same sex marriages are not
9
constitutionally protected in order to define marriage as a
10
legal relationship between a man and a woman as husband and
11
wife which has been sanctioned by the State and which may be
12
reasonably regulated by the State."
13
SECTION 4. New constitutional material is underscored.
14
SECTION 5. This amendment shall take effect upon compliance
15 with Article XVII, section 3, of the Constitution of the State of
16 Hawaii.
17
18
INTRODUCED BY:
146
Appendix D-2
B. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF FAMILY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.B. NO.
EIGHTEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1996
STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO FAMILY.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 11-14.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
"(a) If a life threatening circumstance exists to a law
enforcement person or to the law enforcement person's family,
that law enforcement person may apply to the county clerk to keep
confidential the information relating to residence address and
telephone number contained in the affidavit of registration of
that law enforcement person, or any list or register prepared
therefrom.
For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together; and"
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
147
Page 2
H.B. NO.
1
SECTION 2. Section 46-15.3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
2 amended by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
3
"(b) For the purpose of this section:
4
"Building code" means an ordinance the purpose of which is
5 to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health,
6 property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the
7 design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy,
8 location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within
9 the county's jurisdiction and certain equipment specifically
10 regulated by the ordinance.
11
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
12 necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
13 clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
14 only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
15 life for two or more people living together."
16
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
17 apartment and the economic expenses of life.
18
"Fire code" means an ordinance adopted under section 132-3
19 or an ordinance intended to prescribe regulations consistent with
20 recognized good practice for the safeguarding to a reasonable
21 degree of life and property from the hazards of fire and
22 explosion arising from the storage, handling, and use of
23 hazardous substances, materials, and devices and from conditions
24 hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of
25 buildings or premises.
148
Page 3
H.B. NO.
"Licensed adult family boarding home" means an adult family
boarding home licensed under chapter 346, part IV.
"Licensed care home" means a care home licensed under
section 321-15.6.
"Life safety code" means an ordinance the purpose of which
is to establish minimum requirements that will provide a
reasonable degree of safety from fire in buildings and
structures."
SECTION 3. Section 150A-5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
"$150A-5 Conditions of importation. (a) The importation
into the State of any of the following articles, viz., nursery-
stock, tree, shrub, herb, vine, cut-flower, cutting, graft,
scion, bud, seed, leaf, root, or rhizome; nut, fruit, or
vegetable; grain, cereal, or legume in the natural or raw state;
moss, hay, straw, dry-grass, or other forage; unmanufactured log,
limb, or timber, or any other plant-growth or plant-product,
unprocessed or in the raw state; soil; bacteria, fungus, or
virus; live bird, reptile, nematode, insect, or any other animal
in any stage of development (that is in addition to the so-called
domestic animal, the quarantine of which is provided for in
chapter 142); box, vehicle, baggage, or any other container in
which such articles have been transported or any packing material
used in connection therewith shall be made in the manner
hereinafter set forth:
149
Page 4
H.B. NO.
(1) Notification of arrival. Any person who receives for
1-1
transport or brings or causes to be brought to the
3
State as freight, air freight, baggage, or otherwise,
4
for the purpose of debarkation or entry therein, or as
5
ship's stores, any of the foregoing articles, shall,
6
immediately upon the arrival thereof, notify the
7
department, in writing, of the arrival, giving the
8
waybill number, container number, name and address of
9
the consignor, name and address of the consignee or the
10
consignee's agent in the State, marks, number of
11
packages, description of contents of each package, port
12
at which laden, and any other information that may be
13
necessary to locate or identify the same, and shall
14
hold such articles at the pier, airport, or any other
15
place where they are first received or discharged, in
16
such a manner that they will not spread or be likely to
17
spread any infestation or infection of insects or
18
diseases that may be present until inspection and
19
examination can be made by the inspector to determine
20
whether or not any article, or any portion thereof, is
21
infested or infected with or contains any pest. In
addition, the department by rules shall designate
23
restricted articles that shall require a permit from
24
the department in advance of importation. The
25
restricted articles shall include, but not be limited
150
Page 5
H.B. NO.
to, fungi, bacteria, virus, or living insects. Failure
to obtain the permit in advance is a violation of this
section.
(2) Individual passengers, officers, and crew.
(A) It shall be the responsibility of the
transportation company to distribute, prior to the
debarkation of passengers and baggage, the State
of Hawaii plant and animal declaration form to
each passenger, officer, and crew member of any
aircraft or vessel originating in the continental
United States or its possessions or from any other
area not under the jurisdiction of the appropriate
federal agency in order that the passenger,
officer, or crew member can comply with the
directions and requirements appearing thereon.
All passengers, officers, and crew members,
whether or not they are bringing or causing to be
brought for entry into the State the articles
listed on the form, shall complete the
declaration, except that one adult member of a
family may complete the declaration for other
family members. Any person who defaces the
declaration form required under this section,
gives false information, fails to declare
restricted articles in the person's possession or
151
Page 6
H.B. NO.
1
baggage, or fails to declare in cargo manifests is
2
in violation of this section.
3
(B) Completed forms shall be collected by the
4
transportation company and be delivered,
5
immediately upon arrival, to the inspector at the
6
first airport or seaport of arrival. Failure to
7
distribute or collect declaration forms or to
8
immediately deliver completed forms is a violation
9
of this section.
10
(C) It shall be the responsibility of the officers and
11
crew of an aircraft or vessel originating in the
12
continental United States or its possessions or
13
from any other area not under the jurisdiction of
14
the appropriate federal agency to immediately
15
report all sightings of any plants and animals to
16
the plant quarantine branch. Failure to comply
17
with this requirement is a violation of this
18
section.
19
(3) Plant and animal declaration form. The form shall
20
include directions for declaring domestic and other
21
animals cited in chapter 142, in addition to the
22
articles enumerated in this chapter.
23
(4) Labels. Each container in which any of the above-
24
mentioned articles are imported into the State shall be
25
plainly and legibly marked, in a conspicuous manner and
152
Page 7
H.B. NO.
place, with the name and address of the shipper or
owner forwarding or shipping the same, the name or mark
of the person to whom the same is forwarded or shipped
or the person's agent, the name of the country, state,
or territory and locality therein where the product was
grown or produced, and a statement of the contents of
the container. Upon failure to comply with this
paragraph, the importer or carrier is in violation of
this section.
(5) Authority to inspect. Whenever the inspector has good
cause to believe that the provisions of this chapter
are being violated, the inspector may:
(A) Enter and inspect any aircraft, vessel, or other
carrier at any time after its arrival within the
boundaries of the State, whether offshore, at the
pier, or at the airport, for the purpose of
determining whether any of the articles or pests
enumerated in this chapter or rules adopted
thereto, is present.
(B) Enter into or upon any pier, warehouse, airport,
or any other place in the State where any of the
above-mentioned articles are moved or stored, for
the purpose of ascertaining, by inspection and
examination, whether or not any of the articles is
infested or infected with any pest or disease or
153
Page 8
H.B. NO.
1
contaminated with soil or contains prohibited
2
plants or animals.
3
(C) Inspect any baggage or personal effects of
4
disembarking passengers, officers, and crew
5
members on aircraft or vessels arriving in the
6
State to ascertain if they contain any of the
7
articles or pests enumerated in this chapter. No
8
baggage or other personal effects of the
9
passengers or crew members shall be released until
10
the baggage or effects have been passed.
11
Baggage or cargo inspection shall be made at the
12
discretion of the inspector, on the pier, vessel, or
13
aircraft or in any quarantine or inspection area.
14
Whenever the inspector has good cause to believe
15
that the provisions of this chapter are being violated,
16
the inspector may require that any box, package,
17
suitcase, or any other container carried as ship's
18
stores, cargo, or otherwise by any vessel or aircraft
19
moving between the continental United States and Hawaii
20
or between the Hawaiian Islands, be opened for
21
inspection to determine whether any article or pest
22
prohibited by this chapter or by rules adopted pursuant
23
thereto is present. It is a violation of this section
24
if any prohibited article or any pest or any plant,
25
fruit, or vegetable infested with plant pests is found.
154
Page 9
H.B. NO.
(6) Request for importation and inspection. In addition to
requirements of the United States customs authorities
concerning invoices or other formalities incident to
importations into the State, the importer shall be
required to file a written statement with the
department, signed by the importer or the importer's
agent, setting forth the importer's desire to import
certain of the above-mentioned articles into the State
and giving the following additional information: the
kind (scientific name), quantity, and description; the
locality where same were grown or produced; the
certification that all animals to be imported are the
progeny of captive populations or have been held in
captivity for a period of one year immediately prior to
importation or have been specifically approved for
importation by the board; the port from which the same
were last shipped; the name of the shipper; and the
name of the consignee. The statement shall also
contain:
(A) A request that the department, by its duly
authorized agent, examine the articles described;
(B) An agreement by the importer to be responsible for
all costs, charges, or expenses; and
(C) A waiver of all claims for damages incident to the
inspection or the fumigation, disinfection,
155
Page 10
H.B. NO.
1
quarantine, or destruction of the articles, or any
2
of them, as hereinafter provided, if any treatment
3
is deemed necessary.
4
Failure or refusal to file a statement, including
5
the agreement and waiver, is a violation of this
6
section and may, in the discretion of the department,
7
be sufficient cause for refusing to permit the entry of
8
the articles into the State.
9
(7) Place of inspection. If, in the judgment of the
10
inspector, it is deemed necessary or advisable to move
11
any of the above-mentioned articles, or any portion
12
thereof, to a place more suitable for inspection than
13
the pier, airport, or any other place where they are
14
first received or discharged, the inspector is
15
authorized to do so. All costs and expenses incident
16
to the movement and transportation of the articles to
17
such place shall be borne by the importer or the
18
importer's agent.
19
(8) Disinfection or quarantine. If, upon inspection, any
20
article so received or brought into the State for the
21
purpose of debarkation or entry therein is found to be
22
infested or infected or there is reasonable cause to
23
presume that it is infested or infected and the
24
infestation or infection can, in the judgment of the
25
inspector, be eradicated, a treatment shall be given
156
Page 11
H.B. NO.
such article. The treatment shall be at the expense of
the owner or the owner's agent, and the treatment shall
be as prescribed by the department. The article shall
be held in quarantine at the expense of the owner or
the owner's agent at a satisfactory place approved by
the department for a sufficient length of time to
determine that eradication has been accomplished. If
the infestation or infection is of such nature or
extent that it cannot be effectively and completely
eradicated, or if it is a potentially destructive pest
or it is not widespread in the State, or after
treatment it is determined that the infestation or
infection is not completely eradicated, or if the owner
or the owner's agent refuses to allow the article to be
treated or to be responsible for the cost of treatment
and quarantine, the article, or any portion thereof,
together with all packing and containers, may, at the
discretion of the inspector, be destroyed or sent out
of the State at the expense of the owner or the owner's
agent. Such destruction or exclusion shall not be made
the basis of a claim against the department or the
inspector for damage or loss incurred.
(9) Disposition. Upon completion of inspection, either at
the time of arrival or at any time thereafter should
any article be held for inspection, treatment, or
157
Page 12
H.B. NO.
quarantine, the inspector shall affix to the article or
2
the container or to the delivery order in a conspicuous
3
place thereon, a tag, label, or stamp to indicate that
4
the article has been inspected and passed. This action
5
shall constitute a permit to bring the article into the
6
State.
7
(10) Ports of entry. None of the articles mentioned in this
8
section shall be allowed entry into the State except
9
through the airports and seaports in the State
10
designated and approved by the board.
11
(b) For the purposes of this section:
12
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
13 necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
14 clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
15 only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
16 life for two or more people living together; and
17
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
18 apartment and the economic expenses of life."
19
SECTION 4. Section 184-34, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
20 amended to read as follows:
21
"$188-34 Fishing in Honolulu harbor, Hilo harbor,
22 restricted. It is unlawful to take or kill fish by means of any
23 draw, drag, or seine net in the waters of the harbor of Honolulu;
24 provided that commercial marine licensees as defined in chapter
25 187A may take bait fish by means of any draw, drag, or seine net
158
Page 13
H.B. NO.
during periods scheduled by the harbor master.
It is unlawful to take or kill fish by means of any net in
the waters of that portion of the bay of Hilo bounded by the
breakwater, a line from the outer end of the breakwater to
Alealea Point, and the shoreline from Alealea Point to the
inshore end of the breakwater, provided that commercial marine
and pond operators with appropriate licenses issued by the
department of land and natural resources may take bait fish or
pua, or persons may use throw net, opae net, crab net, or nehu
net not longer than fifty feet to take nehu for family
consumption or bait purposes.
For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together; and
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 5. Section 188-45, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
"$188-45 Nehu and iao, taking prohibited; exceptions. It
is unlawful for any person to fish for, catch, or take in or from
any of the waters within the jurisdiction of the State any nehu
or iao; provided that any person may lawfully catch nehu for the
159
Page 14
H.B. NO.
1 person's family consumption or bait purposes with a net not
2 longer than fifty feet; and provided further that the department
3 of land and natural resources may issue to commercial marine
4 licensees, as defined in chapter 187A, licenses to take nehu,
5 iao, or any other species for which an open season may be
6 declared by the department for use as bait only; provided that
7 nehu may be taken by any licensed commercial marine licensee only
8 if employed on a live-bait tuna boat and only if the licensee's
9 principal means of livelihood is derived from tuna fishing and
10 the sale of tuna, and the nehu is not sold to others. The
11 licenses may be issued by the department upon terms and
12 conditions the department may deem necessary to conserve the
13 supply of the fish within state waters. The license may be
14 summarily revoked for a violation of any term or condition
15 thereof, and any or all licenses may be revoked summarily
16 whenever, in the judgment of the department, the action is
17 necessary for the conservation of the fish.
18
Any person whose license has been revoked for violation of
19 the terms and conditions of the person's license shall not be
20 eligible for another license until the expiration of one year
21 from the date of revocation.
22
For the purposes of this section:
23
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
24 necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
25 clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
160
Page 15
H.B. NO.
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together; and
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 6. Section 201F-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
"(c) For the purposes of this chapter[, the applicable]:
"Applicable median family income" shall be the median family
income for the county or standard metropolitan statistical area
in which the project is located as determined by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development, as adjusted
from time to time[.
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together; and
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
:
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 7. Section 209-29, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
!
"$209-29 Eligibility for loans. (a) Loans may be made to
}
individuals, partnerships, corporations, cooperatives, or other
I business associations, but only if the applicant:
(1) Suffered loss of or damage to property in a
161
Page 16
H.B. NO.
rehabilitation area as a result of a state disaster;
1.'
(2) For a commercial loan, had operated an industrial,
3
manufacturing, processing, wholesaling, or retailing
4
business, or professional or service business, or
5
building rental business, immediately before the
6
disaster;
7
(3) Presents a suitable program for:
8
(A) Rehabilitation or re-establishment of the
9
applicant's business to its predisaster level when
10
applying for a commercial loan; or
11
(B) Meeting necessary expenses and satisfying the
12
serious needs of the applicant and the applicant's
13
family when applying for a personal loan;
14
(4) Has reasonable ability to repay the loan; and
15
(5) For a commercial loan, presents written evidence that
16
the Small Business Administration had declined an
17
application for financial assistance under the Small
18
Business Administration Disaster Loan Program or has
19
reduced the amount of the loan request; provided that
20
the declination was not due to the applicant's having
21
sufficient financial resources to rehabilitate the
22
applicant; or
23
(6) For a commercial loan, cannot secure any loans from the
24
Small Business Administration Disaster Loan Program
25
because the making of the loans is not covered by the
162
Page 17
H.B. NO.
program, and the director of business, economic
development, and tourism is reasonably satisfied that
the applicant is not able to secure loans from private
lending institutions and does not have sufficient
financial resources to rehabilitate the applicant.
Paragraph (6) shall be applied in the alternative with
respect to paragraph (5) of this section.
(b) For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
: only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
:
life for two or more people living together; and
:
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
i
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 8. Section 231-25, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
"$231-25 Payment, enforcement of by assumpsit action or by
?
levy and distraint upon all property and rights to property. (a)
) If any tax be unpaid when due, the director of taxation may
! proceed to enforce the payment of the same, with all penalties,
: as follows:
3
(1) By action in assumpsit, in the director's own name, on
behalf of the State, for the amount of taxes and costs,
or, if the tax is delinquent, for the amount of taxes,
163
Page 18
H.B. NO.
1
costs, penalties, and interest, in any district court,
2
irrespective of the amount claimed. Execution may
3
issue upon any judgment rendered in any such action
4
which may be satisfied out of any real or personal
5
property of the defendant.
6
(2) By levy upon all property and rights to property
7
(except such property as is exempt under paragraph
8
(b) (5) of this section) belonging to such taxpayer or
9
on which there is a lien, as the director may deem
10
sufficient to satisfy the payment of taxes due,
11
penalties and interest if any, and the costs and
12
expenses of the levy.
13
(b) The following rules are applicable to the levy as
14 provided for in paragraph (a) (2) of this section:
15
(1) Seizure and sale of property. The term "levy" as used
16
in this section includes the power of distraint and
17
seizure by any means. A levy shall extend only to
18
property possessed and obligations existing at the time
19
thereof. In any case in which the director or the
20
director's representative may levy upon property or
21
rights to property, the director may seize and sell
22
such property or rights to property (whether real or
23
personal, tangible or intangible).
24
(2) Successive seizures. Whenever any property or right to
25
property upon which levy has been made is not
164
Page 19
H.B. NO.
sufficient to satisfy the claim of the State for which
levy is made, the director or the director's
representative may, thereafter, and as often as may be
necessary, proceed to levy in like manner upon any
other property liable to levy of the person against
whom such claim exists, until the amount due from the
person, together with all expenses, is fully paid.
(3) Surrender of property subject to levy.
(A) Requirement. Any person in possession of (or
obligated with respect to) property or rights to
property subject to levy upon which a levy has
been made shall, upon demand of the director or
the director's representative, surrender such
property or rights (or discharge such obligation)
to the director or the director's representative,
except such part of the property or rights as is,
at the time of such demand, subject to an
attachment or execution under any judicial
process.
(B) Extent of personal liability. Any person who
fails or refuses to surrender property or rights
to property, subject to levy, upon demand by the
director or the director's representative, shall
be liable in the person's own person and estate to
the State in a sum equal to the value of the
165
Page 20
H.B. NO.
1
property or rights not so surrendered, but not
2
exceeding the amount of taxes for the collection
3
of which such levy has been made, together with
4
costs and interest on such sum at the rate of
5
eight per cent a year from the date of such levy.
6
Any amount (other than costs) recovered under this
-1
subparagraph shall be credited against the tax
8
liability for the collection of which such levy
9
was made.
10
(C) Penalty for violation. In addition to the
11
personal liability imposed by subparagraph (B), if
12
any person required to surrender property or
13
rights to property fails or refuses to surrender
14
such property or rights to property without
15
reasonable cause, such person shall be liable for
16
a penalty equal to fifty per cent of the amount
17
recoverable under subparagraph (B). No part of
18
such penalty shall be credited against the tax
19
liability for the collection of which such levy
20
was made.
21
(D) Effect of honoring levy. Any person in possession
22
of (or obligated with respect to) property or
23
rights to property subject to levy upon which a
24
levy has been made who, upon demand by the
25
director or the director's representative,
166
Page 21
H.B. NO.
surrenders such property or rights to property (or
discharges such obligation) to the director or the
director's representative shall be discharged from
any obligation or liability to the delinquent
taxpayer with respect to such property or rights
to property arising from such surrender or
payment.
(E) Person defined. The term "person," as used in
subparagraph (A), includes an officer or employee
of a corporation or a member or employee of a
partnership, who as such officer, employee, or
member is under a duty to surrender the property
or rights to property, or to discharge the
obligation.
(4) Production of books. If a levy has been made or is
about to be made on any property, or right to property,
any person having custody or control of books or
records, containing evidence or statements relating to
the property or right to property subject to levy,
shall, upon demand of the director or the director's
representative, exhibit such books or records to the
director or the director's representative.
(5) Property exempt from levy. Notwithstanding any other
law of the State, no property or rights to property
shall be exempt from levy other than the following:
167
Page 22
H.B. NO.
1
(A) Wearing apparel and school books. Such items of
2
wearing apparel and such school books as are
3
necessary for the taxpayer or for members of the
4
taxpayer's family.
5
(B) Fuel, provisions, furniture, and personal effects.
6
If the taxpayer is the head of a family, so much
7
of the fuel, provisions, furniture, and personal
8
effects in the taxpayer's household, and of the
9
arms for personal use, livestock, and poultry of
10
the taxpayer, as does not exceed $500 in value.
11
(C) Books and tools of a trade, business or
12
profession. So many of the books and tools
13
necessary for the trade, business, or profession
14
of the taxpayer as do not exceed in the aggregate
15
$250 in value.
16
(D) Unemployment benefits. Any amount payable to an
17
individual with respect to the individual's
18
unemployment (including any portion thereof
19
payable with respect to dependents) under an
20
unemployment compensation law of the United States
21
or the State.
22
(E) Undelivered mail. Mail, addressed to any person,
23
which has not been delivered to the addressee.
24
(6) Sale of the seized property.
25
(A) Notice of sale. The director shall take
168
Page 23
H.B. NO.
possession and keep the levied property until the
sale. After taking possession, the director shall
sell the taxpayer's interest in the property at
public auction after first giving fifteen days'
public notice of the time and place of the sale by
publication at least once in a newspaper,
published in the district, or by posting the
notice in at least three public places in the
district where the sale is to be held.
(B) Assistance in seizure and sale. The director may
require the assistance of any sheriff or
authorized police officer of any county to aid in
the seizure and sale of the levied property. The
director may further retain the services of any
person competent and qualified to aid in the sale
of the levied property, provided that the consent
of the delinquent taxpayer is obtained. Any
sheriff or the person so retained by the director
shall be paid a fair and reasonable fee but in no
)
case shall the fee exceed ten per cent of the
1
gross proceeds of the sale. Any person other than
2
a sheriff so retained by the director to assist
3
the director may be required to furnish bond in an
1
amount to be determined by the director. The fees
;
and the cost of the bond shall constitute a part
169
Page 24
H.B. NO.
1
of the costs and expenses of the levy.
2
(C) Time and place of sale. The sale shall take place
3
within thirty days after seizure; provided that by
4
public announcement at the sale, or at the time
5
and place previously set for the sale, it may be
6
extended for one week. Any further extension of
7
the sale shall be with the consent of the
8
delinquent taxpayer. The sale shall, in any
9
event, be completed within forty-five days after
10
seizure of the property.
11
(D) Manner and conditions of sale. Sufficient
12
property shall be sold to pay all taxes,
13
penalties, interest, costs, and expenses. On
14
payment of the price bid for any property sold,
15
the delivery thereof with a bill of sale from the
16
director shall vest the title of the property in
17
the purchaser. No charge shall be made for the
18
bill of sale. All surplus received upon any sale
19
after the payment of the taxes, penalties,
20
interest, costs, and expenses, shall be returned
21
to the owner of the property sold, and until
22
claimed shall be deposited with the department
23
subject to the order of the owner. Any unsold
24
portion of the property seized may be left at the
25
place of sale at the risk of the owner.
170
Page 25
H.B. NO.
(E) Redemption of property. If the owner of the
property seized desires to retain or regain
possession thereof, the owner may give a
sufficient bond with surety to produce the
property at the time and place of sale, or pay all
taxes, penalties, interest, costs and expenses.
(c) For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together; and
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 9. Section 321-123, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
"$321-123 Financial assistance; eligibility standards. (a)
The department of health shall extend financial assistance under
this part to aid in offsetting:
)
(1) Expenses directly incurred in dialysis or any other
medical or surgical procedures necessary for the care
and treatment of chronic renal disease; and
3
(2) The cost of purchasing and installing home dialysis
equipment and the supplies therefor.
(b) The department shall establish standards of eligibility
171
Page 26
H.B. NO.
1 for financial assistance under this part which, taking into
2 consideration the total funds available under this part and the
3 number of sufferers needing financial assistance, seek to
4 minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the effect of chronic
5 renal disease on the economic well-being of the sufferer and the
6 sufferer's family. In determining eligibility for financial
7 assistance under this part, the department shall consider the
8 financial resources of the patient, the availability of third
9 party reimbursement for all or part of the expense of the care
10 and treatment of the sufferer, and the extent to which the
11 failure to extend financial assistance under this part would
12 affect the sufferer and the sufferer's family; provided that the
13 financial assistance extended under this part shall not be used
14 to reduce assistance payments from the department of human
15 services to which the sufferer or the sufferer's family is
16 otherwise entitled.
17
(c) For the purposes of this section:
18
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
19 necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
20 clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
21 only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
22 life for two or more people living together; and
23
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
24 apartment and the economic expenses of life."
25
SECTION 10. Section 321-351, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
172
Page 27
H.B. NO.
amended by adding two new definitions to be appropriately
inserted and to read as follows:
""Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together.
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 11. Section 323-51, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended to read as follows:
"[[] $323-51 []] Animal therapy. Animals of the kind
commonly kept as household or family pets may be brought into
long term health care facilities for the purpose of visiting
patients therein. The institution shall determine whether an
animal is suitable for visitation, the location where the visit
may take place, and the policies governing the visit. At the
discretion of the institution, the animal owner may be required
to produce written documentation from a veterinarian attesting to
the animal's good health, before visitation is permitted.
For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
173
Page 28
H.B. NO.
1 life for two or more people living together; and
2
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
3 apartment and the economic expenses of life."
4
SECTION 12. Section 327-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
5 amended to read as follows:
6
"$327-3 Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical
7 gifts, by others. (a) Any member of the following classes of
8 persons, in the order of priority listed, may make an anatomical
9 gift of all or a part of the decedent's body for an authorized
J purpose, unless the decedent, at the time of death, has made an
11 unrevoked refusal to make that anatomical gift:
12
(1) The spouse of the decedent or[;] adult family member
1.
who lived with the decedent just prior to death as
14
defined in subsection (f);
15
(2) An adult son or daughter of the decedent;
16
(3) Either parent of the decedent;
17
(4) An adult brother or sister of the decedent;
18
(5) A grandparent of the decedent; and
19
(6) A guardian of the person of the decedent at the time of
20
death.
21
(b) An anatomical gift may not be made by a person listed
22 in subsection (a) if:
23
(1) A person in a prior class is available at the time of
24
death to make an anatomical gift;
25
(2) The person proposing to make an anatomical gift knows
174
Page 29
H.B. NO.
of a refusal or contrary indications by the decedent;
or
(3) The person proposing to make an anatomical gift knows
of an objection to making an anatomical gift by a
member of the person's class or a prior class.
(c) An anatomical gift by a person authorized under
subsection (a) shall be made by:
(1) A document of gift signed by the person; or
(2) The person's telegraphic, recorded telephonic, or other
recorded message, or other form of communication from
the person that is contemporaneously reduced to writing
and signed by the recipient.
(d) An anatomical gift by a person authorized under
subsection (a) may be revoked by any member of the same or a
prior class if, before procedures have begun for the removal of a
part from the body of the decedent, the physician, surgeon,
technician, or enucleator removing the part knows of the
revocation.
(e) A failure to make an anatomical gift under subsection
(a) is not an objection to the making of an anatomical gift.
(f) For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
175
Page 30
H.B. NO.
1 life for two or more people living together; and
2
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
3 apartment and the economic expenses of life."
4
SECTION 13. Section 334-59, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
5 amended by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
6
"(d) Emergency hospitalization. If the physician or the
7 psychologist who performs the emergency examination has reason to
8 believe that the patient is:
9
(1) Mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse;
10
(2) Imminently dangerous to self or others, or is gravely
11
disabled, or is obviously ill; and
12
(3) In need of care or treatment, or both;
13 the physician or the psychologist may direct that the patient be
14 hospitalized on an emergency basis or cause the patient to be
15 transferred to another psychiatric facility for emergency
16 hospitalization, or both. The patient shall have the right
17 immediately upon admission to telephone the patient's guardian or
18 a family member or an adult friend and an attorney. If the
19 patient declines to exercise that right, the staff of the
20 facility shall inform the adult patient of the right to waive
21 notification to the family and shall make reasonable efforts to
22 ensure that the patient's guardian or family is notified of the
23 emergency admission but the patient's family need not be notified
24 if the patient is an adult and requests that there be no
25 notification. The patient shall be allowed to confer with an
176
Page 31
H.B. NO.
attorney in private.
For the purposes of this section:
"Economic expenses of life" means the cost of the daily
necessities of life including the cost food, housing and
clothing. It shall be considered sharing the expenses of life if
only one person pays the entire costs of the economic expenses of
life for two or more people living together; and
"Family" shall include those people who share a house or
apartment and the economic expenses of life."
SECTION 14. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed.
New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 15. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
177
Appendix E
HISTORICAL LESSONS¹
It is said that we as a society are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past unless we
study and learn the lessons of history. For the purposes of this report, the Commission finds
the most compelling similarity of facts, and hence the existence of relevant lessons from
history, in the treatment of "marriage" during the religious wars of 17th century England.²
Two other historical periods are less clear as relevant examples for the Commission's
work. Most African-Americans prior to 1865 could get married using their own clergy or, at
times, a state-licensed member of the clergy, but they would not be issued government
certificates because they were slaves. Such couples were married but lacked certificates.
Jewish-Germans under the Nazi government were likewise capable of getting married
but not being certified by the government.
In both these latter examples, however, the people being discriminated against were
also denied many other basic human rights and were not considered full citizens. The married
couples, or potentially marriable couples, in modern Hawaii who are being denied certificates
are, however, accorded many more basic human rights than the slaves or Jews in these two
examples.
Also, the slaves and Jews were generally in immutable situations -- they could not
themselves change their race, slave-status, or ethnicity. The religious minorities of 17th
century England were instead persecuted for their choice of religions belief -- they could
themselves change their status by converting to the state church. For the same-gender
couples in modern Hawaii who are discriminated against, many may have immutable sexual
orientations, but at least some may have chosen their partner as a matter of choice.³
1. This appendix was contributed by Dr. Stauffer and approved and endorsed by the
Commission.
2. One text, which includes key portions of the transcript from the historic Bushell's Case
described later in the text, is Braithwaite, William C. The Second Period of Quakerism. York,
England: William Sessions Limited, 1979 edition of the 1919 original volume.
See also the two general histories by Hill, Christopher: Puritanism and Revolution. New
York: Schocken, 1958, and The World Turned Upside Down. New York: Viking, 1972.
3. The Hon. James Burns, acting associate justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court for the Baehr
case, based his partial dissent on this point. I.e., that if sexual orientation is an immutable
status, then discrimination exists; if it is not immutable, then perhaps it does not. Baehr v.
Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 585.
The court's majority ruled that the issue was not relevant as the discrimination was not on
the basis of sexual orientation but purely on gender.
The historical example of the English persecutions would support this: whether a
discriminated class is based on immutable grounds such as race or ethnicity, or whether it is
based on mutable grounds such as religious belief, is irrelevant. As long as it is a protected
class (such as religion, national origin, or gender), it should be accorded the proper level of
protection.
179
Many other similarities exist between the English example and the modern Hawaii
situation. The laws against the non-believers and wrong-believers in England were based on
their "immorality" of religious belief and their "pernicious" conduct. The discrimination was
based on the further belief that society-wide disaster would await England due to Divine
retribution for allowing the wrong-believers and non-believers to legally exist.
The discrimination was also based on strongly-held majoritarian religious beliefs. And
it was based on strongly-held majoritarian social beliefs, as and enacted into law by the
people's representatives. The discrimination was also based on not wanting to extend
"special rights" to the non-believers and wrong-believers. That is to say, the persecutory laws
were equal in their application: all non-believers and wrong-believers were treated equally. It
could be said that it would be granting a "special right" to allow any of them to worship in a
manner anathema to the True Church and against the laws of the land.
This then is the historical case: for a decade in the 1650s the English throne was
overturned and a non-monarchy republic established. The official Church of England, allied to
the throne. also lost favor, while the "Nonconformist" churches held much power, particularly
the Puritans (today's United Church of Christ).
With the restoration of the monarchy and re-establishment of the Kingdom in 1660, the
state church also regained power. Laws were soon passed outlawing all Nonconformist faiths,
particularly the newly founded Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends) and the Baptists.
Many Nonconformists saw their church buildings seized or shut-down, their clergy
threatened with arrest or forced underground. With their worship officially outlawed, many
would gather at dining tables in private homes with food set out before them, and hold their
services. If the authorities burst in - as they often did -- the worshipers could claim that they
were simply gathered for a meal.
The Quakers went a step further, gathering outside. their seized or government-
destroyed meeting houses and holding their services in the open, daring the authorities to act.
The government met the challenge, beating many worshippers and arresting thousands, with
large numbers dying in the filthy prisons of the era. At the height of the "Intolerance" era,
throughout large areas of England not a single adult male Quaker remained outside of jail.
The laws weighed heavily within the arena of marriage. Couples who married at a
Nonconformist church were denied government marriage certificates. These marriages were
not "legal marriages," and the spouses were not "legal spouses." Put another way, the
couples were married, but lacked a government certificate because of religious discrimination
on the part of the government.
These couples could be prosecuted under criminal statutes for "living in sin," their
children could be harassed or sometimes taken away as being "illegitimate," and greedy
relatives often could claim the family's assets at the time of death of one or both parents, thus
dispossessing the children and at times the second spouse.
That is to say, the "major legal and economic marriage benefits" of the day
guaranteed the right to legally cohabit, to have legal children, and to provide for an orderly
probate process at the time of death, in favor of the surviving spouse and children. These
benefits were denied to those married couples that did not have government certificates.
The persecution of the day created tremendous pressure on married couples seeking
to provide benefits for their children. Several married Quaker couples, for instance, would
180
seek out a government-sanctioned priest to certify their relationships. But this meant breaking
the doctrine of their own religion, which regarded the Church of England priests as agents of
evil Quaker congregations met often during this period to counsel and at times discipline
couples who had sinned by consenting to "marriage by the priest."
The government's witch hunt meanwhile reached its climax when the Quaker minister
William Penn, later the founder of Pennsylvania, went to his seized and shuttered meeting
house in London in 1670 and began services on the sidewalk outside. William Meade was in
the congregation with other Friends, when the constables attacked.
The religious persecution laws permitted trials without jury, but the authorities
unwittingly charged Penn and Meade with rioting, a charge accorded the right of jury. The
trial was however short-lived, Penn appealing to the "fundamental rights" of all English
citizens, and the judge ordering he and Meade hauled away.
The jury returned a decision of "not guilty" for Meade, and found Penn "guilty of
speaking in Gracious Street," noting that street talk was no crime. The judge refused the
verdict, whereupon it was repeated in writing by the jury and again refused, the jury then
being sent off without "meat, drink, fire, and tobacco" until the next morning.
The next day found the jury unrepentant, with the judge threatening to cut off the jury
foreman's nose, Penn claiming that menacing a jury violated the Magna Charta, and the
court's recorder -- in words reminiscent of testimony received by the Commission -- calling for
the (Quaker) perversion to be removed from the land through introducing the techniques of
the Spanish Inquisition. The following day, with the jury still on their enforced fast, they
again stood by their verdict, and when this was refused once more, they issued a new written
verdict of "not guilty" for both Penn and Meade.
The judge then fined and jailed the jury and kept the now not-guilty. Penn and Meade
in jail as well. Word of the scandal, and the heroism of the non-Quaker jury, spread through
the Kingdom. Months later the jury was released after an Habeas Corpus appeal. About a
year later a higher court, led by a judge who evidently loved the Church of England but loved
liberty more, issued the landmark Bushell's Case decision, named for Edward Bushell, an
outspoken member of the jury.
Wrote the latter court, "what either necessary or convenient use can be fancied of
[i.e., found for] juries, or [even] to continue trials by them at all" if their presiding judges do
no: give them the right to decide decisions?⁵ British and American principles of civil rights,
including the right by a jury free to issue its own decision, have abided by the Bushell's
Case's principles ever since.
Still, the religious wars continued, the level of persecution first ebbing and then flowing
once again. Nearly twenty years later (1689) there was a Toleration Act that eased the
oppression religious rules somewhat, but it was 1753 before Quaker marriages (for different-
gendered couples) were universally certified by the government.
It was the fearful memories of the abuse of "fundamental rights" perpetrated by
government-supported churches and religiously-influenced governmental laws that led
4. Braithwaite, p. 253.
5. Braithwaite, p. 73.
181
ultimately within the U.S. to adoption of the First Amendment's rules, (a) against the Federal
government showing favoritism towards any particular religion, and, (b) against improper
influence of religion in government. These two rules were then extended to the States after
passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
The Commission finds clear and convincing parallels between the events outlined
above and the current marriage situation in Hawaii. Some of the Nonconformist churches of
that earlier day, in their modern incarnations,⁶ and other churches,⁷ are today marrying
together spouses, only to find that these couples cannot receive government certificates.
The Commission also finds that these many churches are legally protected in their
right to marry same-gender couples,⁸ more than can be said for the lack of liberty given their
counterparts in England three centuries ago. But these modern Hawaii churches and their
members still cannot obtain certification for these marriages. Further, while history has judged
the English authorities to have discriminated on the basis of religion, the Hawaii Supreme
Court has judged the Hawaii State authorities to be showing discrimination today on the basis
of gender. The Commission finds further that the broader question of whether something
should be recommended to be done about this is addressed in the body of this report.
The lessons from the above historical parallels, however, reinforce the Commission's
finding that it is necessary in this report to differentiate between "marriage" and being "legally
married;" between being a spouse and being a "legal spouse;" and between being "married"
and "having a government certificate." There are same-gender spouses in Hawaii today who
are married and have formally celebrated their religious marriage ceremonies in their
churches, presided over by government-licensed clergy.⁹ What does not exist today in
Hawaii, however, are such couples that possess government certificates, just as there were
so many married couples three centuries ago that were denied such certificates.
6. I.e., in Hawaii, congregations of the United Church of Christ and of the Religious Society of
Friends have both either married same-gender couples or announced their willingness to do
so.
7. E.g., the Unitarian-Universalists some Lutherans, the Metropolitan churches, many
Buddhist denominations, etc.
8. Section 572-1.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes (1993 and Supp 1994).
9. This also applies to couples ready, willing, and able to get married, who would be denied
certificates if they got married and then applied for governmental certification. It also applies
to couples who, like their different-gender counterparts, would desire to get certified by a
judge.
182
Appendix F
COLLECTION OF REFERENCES
F-1
Majority
A. Full Faith and Credit Law Overview
185
B. APA Policy Statements on Lesbian and Gay Issues
186
C.
Selected Quotations
187
F-2
Minority
A.
"Not-so-straight news"
193
B.
ACLU Press Release
194
C.
Selected Quotations
195
183
Appendix F-1
A. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT LAW OVERVIEW
Gay
Marriage
ANTI-GAY
Marriage
Rights
Validation
Sodomy
Marriage
Evasion
ERA (+)
Law (+)
Law
Law (-)
Law (+)
Law (-)
Alaska
California
Arizona
Alabama
Florida
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Arkansas
Arizona
Illinois
Dist. of Columbia
Connecticut
Dist. of Columbia
California
Arkansas*
Indiana****
Georgia
Hawaii
Hawaii
Colorado
Florida
Kansas
Illinois
Illinois
Massachusetts
Georgia
Georgia
Louisiana
Indiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Idaho
Idaho
Maryland****
Maine
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Illinois
Kansas'
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Montana
Rhode Island
Kansas
Louisiana
Nevada
Michigan
New Hampshire
Vermont
Kentucky
Maryland
North Carolina
North Dakota
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Michigan
Massachusetts
North Dakota
Vermont
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Michigan
Oregon
Wisconsin
Texas
Nebraska
Minnesota
Texas
Utah
New Mexico
Mississippi
Utah****
Virginia
North Dakota
Missouri*
Virginia*
Washington
South Dakota
Montana"
Wyoming
Wyoming
Utah
North Carolina
Wyoming
Oklahoma*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee*
Texas'
Utah
Virginia
The first three columns are characteristics
An anti-gay marriage law is a law, often part of
considered positive for gay marriage. A (+) Indicates their
marriage statute Itself, which explicitly states that marri.
presence. The last three columns are characteristics
can be entered into only by one man and one won
considered negative for gay marriage. A (-) indicates their
and/or specifically forbids same-sex marriage (these 1
presence as well.
are
marked
ERA signifies an equal rights amendment regarding
A marriage evasion statute is a law which says
gender is part of the state's constitution.
a couple has gone to another state in order to of
marriage, because that marriage would have been ir
A marriage validation statute is a state law indicating
their home state (the state in question), that mar
that marriages legally constituted in another state, but not
(still) invalid in their home state. This law trumps
conforming to the laws of the state in question, are
validation statutes in the states which have bo
nonetheless considered valid. This law is not absolute. If
above.)
such a validation would. in the court's (or first. in the state's)
view contravene a "basic public policy." such marriages can
Source:
Forum on the Right to Marriage
under common law still be held invalid. (See also marriage
227 Chelsea Street
evasion statute-below.)
East Boston, MA 02128
in the sodomy law column, (-) indicates that the law
applies only to gay sex. (***) Indicates that a sodomy law
is still technically on the books. but has been effectively
rendered unenforceable. at least as private sex is
concerned. Consult statutes and case histories for these
states.
185
Appendix F-1
B. APA POLICY STATEMENTS ON LESBIAN AND GAY ISSUES
APA Policy Statements on Lesbian
Discrimination Against Homosexuals
At its January 1975 meeting, Council [Ed. note: The Council of Representatives,
governing body of the American Psychological Association] adopted a statement
policy regarding homosexuals, recommended by BSERP [Ed. note: The Board of Social
and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology, a Standing Board provided by the American
Psychological Association's Bylaws] and amended by the Board of Directors and Council,
and adapted from a statement adopted by the Association of Gay Psychologists Caucus
Meeting in New Orleans in September 1974. Further, Council voted that the
Association's Statement of Policy regarding Equal Employment Opportunity be amended
to include sexual orientation among the prohibited discriminations listed in the
statement. Following is the Policy Statement regarding Discrimination against
Homosexuals:
1. The American Psychological Association supports the action taken on December 15,
1973, by the American Psychiatric Association, removing homosexuality from that
Association's official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association
therefore adopts the following resolution:
Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability,
or general social and vocational capabilities:
Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health
professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has
long been associated with homosexual orientations.
2. Regarding discrimination against homosexuals, the American Psychological
Association adopts the following resolution concerning their civil and legal rights:
The American Psychological Association deplores all public and private
discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation,
and licensing against those who engage in or have engaged in homosexual
activities and declares that no burden of proof of such judgement, capacity, or
reliability shall be placed upon these individuals greater than that imposed or
any other persons. Further; the American Psychological Association suppor
and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, and state ,
federal level that would offer citizens who engage in acts of homosexuality
same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color
Further, the American Psychological Association supports and urges the
of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by con'
adults in private. (Conger, 1975, P. 633)
186
Appendix F-1
C. SELECTED QUOTATIONS
"The deletion of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the
American Psychiatric Association in 1980 marked a dramatic reversal of the judgment that
homosexuality is a behavioral disorder. In the practice of medicine, especially psychiatry, it is
important to distinguish between that which is abnormal and that which is not."
--Richard C. Friedman, M.D. and Jennifer I. Downey, M.D., "Homosexuality," New
England Journal of Medicine, October 6, 1994, Volume 331, No. 14, pg. 923.
"The literature on children of lesbian mothers indicates no adverse effects of a
homosexual orientation, as evidenced by psychiatric symptoms, peer relationships, and
overall functioning of the offspring. The frequency of a homosexual orientation has not been
greater in such children than in children of heterosexual mothers. The data on children of gay
fathers is more scant. No evidence has emerged, however, to indicate an adverse effect of
sexual orientation on the quality of fathering. Enough information has accumulated to warrant
the recommendation that sexual orientation should not in itself be the basis for psychiatric
and legal decisions about parenting or planned parenting."
--Richard C. Friedman, M.D. and Jennifer I. Downey, M.D., "Homosexuality," New
England Journal of Medicine, October 6, 1994, Volume 331, No. 14, pg. 927.
"Patients who seek a change in their sexual orientation are diverse with respect to
sexual attitudes, values, and psychopathological features. Some are motivated by
homophobia, and the wish to change subsides as this is addressed. Others reject their
homosexual orientation for other reasons, often religious. Sometimes the incompatibility
between sexual desires and personal values cannot be resolved by therapeutic interventions.'
--Richard C. Friedman, M.D. and Jennifer I. Downey, M.D., "Homosexuality," New
England Journal of Medicine, October 6, 1994, Volume 331, No. 14, pg. 927.
"There are no data from scientific studies to justify the unequal treatment of
homosexual people or their exclusion from any group."
--Richard C. Friedman, M.D. and Jennifer I. Downey, M.D., "Homosexuality," New
England Journal of Medicine, October 6, 1994, Volume 331, No. 14, pg. 928.
"One of the justifications presented for strong anti-gay legislation in these states was
the assertion that gays and lesbians are at particularly greater risk to sexually molest children.
"Colorado for Family Values," a group lobbying to limit gay rights, asserted that people living
a homosexual lifestyle were responsible for 50% of all child molestations.
-- --"Atler disputes group's assertions about gays." Denver Post, Sept. 3, 1992, B5.
In addition to noting the relationship to the child, we evaluated the information
provided about the alleged perpetrators to determine if they were involved or had been
involved in heterosexual relationships. Heterosexual relationships were documented for 237
(88%) of the alleged adult offenders. In 32 cases no "sexual identity" could be inferred from
the pattern of relationships documented in the chart. In most of these cases, the person who
187
brought the child to the clinic was not personally acquainted with the alleged offender and
had no knowledge of his or her habits or lifestyle.
--Jenny, MD, MBA, Carole; Thomas A. Roesler, MD; and Kimberly L. Poyer,
MSW, "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" Pediatrics, Vol.
94, No. 1, July 1994.
"Community-based studies of adults indicate the typical perpetrator is likely to be a
trusted person in the child's immediate network of family or friends, and rarely is childhood
sexual abuse committed by strangers"
--Jenny, MD, MBA, Carole; Thomas A. Roesler, MD; and Kimberly L. Poyer,
MSW, "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" Pediatrics, Vol.
94, No. 1, July 1994, citing Russel, D.E.H., "The incidence and prevalence of
intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children," Child Abuse &
Neglect, 1983, 7:133-146.
11 a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over
100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian or
bisexual."
--Jenny, MD, MBA, Carole; Thomas A. Roesler, MD; and Kimberly L. Poyer,
MSW, "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" Pediatrics, Vol.
94, No. 1, July 1994.
" no evidence is available from this data that children are at greater risk to be
molested by identifiable homosexuals than by other adults. There is no support for the claim
to the effect by groups advocating legislation limiting rights of homosexuals.
--Jenny, MD, MBA, Carole; Thomas A. Roesler, MD; and Kimberly L. Poyer,
MSW, "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" Pediatrics, Vol.
94, No. 1, July 1994.
"If religious strictures are used to justify oppression by people who regularly disregard
precepts of equal gravity from the same moral code, or if prohibitions which restrain a disliked
minority are upheld in their most literal sense as absolutely inviolable while comparable
precepts affecting the majority are relaxed or reinterpreted, one must suspect something
other than religious belief as the motivating cause of the oppression."
--John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, Yale, 1980, pg. 7.
"There is a sense in which gay people were the first to introduce romantic love into the
Christian system of thought, and following this, marriage as a result of romantic love rather
than biological necessity. There is a great irony in the fact that in the 20th century gay people
should therefore be made to feel that there is no place for them in that tradition.
--The Fifth Annual Michael Harding Memorial Address: Rediscovering Gay
History, by John Boswell, transcript by Gay Christian Movement, 1982, pg. 21.
"One might view these unions as 'imitative of heterosexual marriage, but it would be
more cautious to see them as modes of 'participating in' the majority culture."
--John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, Villard, 1994, pg. 82.
188
Karl Ulrichs, a German and probably the first gay political activist to ever live wrote in
1869 of the church's refusal to sanction gay marriage:
"That they have omitted doing this is a sin of hitherto unsuspected significance for
the Church, a sin whose burden falls upon the Church itself. It criticizes the [gay person]
with: 'You fulfill your Sexual orientation sinfully.' However, based upon that omission, he
parries the entire criticism with: 'You, however, carry the guilt of not making it possible for me
to do so without sin'."
-Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, trans. by Michael Lombardi-Nash, The Riddle of "Man-Manly"
Love, 1994, pg. 563. (Originally published 1864-1879.)
Ulrichs again:
"But to call the blind cry of the masses: 'Punish the [homosexual's] 'awareness of the
law' is nothing but a euphemism. Two hundred forty years ago they called out: 'Burn the
sorcerer!' and at one time in Rome: 'Christians to the lions!' Would you call those the
'awareness of the law'? In London they once established a committee for the delivery of
wood to the funeral piles 'to burn heretic' Legislators should not subordinate themselves to
such an awareness of the law... We have ministers of justice, not ministers of people's
passions."
--Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, trans. by Michael Lombardi-Nash, The Riddle of "Man-Manly"
Love, 1994, pg. 540. (Originally published 1864-1879.)
In his book, A More Perfect Union: Why Straight America Must Stand Up for Gay
Rights, Richard Mohr recounts the following true, not atypical story:
"On their walk back from their neighborhood bar to the Victorian [house] which, over
the years, they have lovingly restored, Warren and Mark stop along San Francisco's Polk
Street to pick up milk for breakfast Just for kicks, some wealthy teens from the valley drive
into town to 'bust some fags.' Warren dips into a convenience store, while Mark has a smoke
outside. As Mark turns to acknowledge Warren's return, he is hit across the back of the head
with a baseball bat. Mark's blood and vomit splash across Warren's face. At San Francisco
General, Mark is dead on arrival. Subsequently in 1987, a California appellate court holds
that under no circumstance can a relationship between two homosexuals-however
emotionally significant, stable, and exclusive--be legally considered a 'close relationship,' and
so Warren is barred from bringing any suit against the bashers for negligently causing
emotional distress, let alone for wrongful death."
--Richard Mohr, A More Perfect Union: Why Straight America Must Stand Up for Gay Rights,
Beacon, 1994, pp. 33-34.
"They are married to each other in their own eyes, in God's eyes, in the eyes of their
church and community--in every eye but the law's."
-Richard Mohr, A More Perfect Union Why Straight America Must Stand Up for Gay Rights,
Beacon, 1994, pp. 52-53.
"
in approaching the courts, gays need to acknowledge that there are some cases
and moral causes that are advanced for the sake of such important values that they are
causes and cases worth losing."
-Richard Mohr, Gay Ideas: Outing and Other Controversies, Beacon, 1992, pg. 86.
189
"I suggest that, for the foreseeable future, dignity rather than happiness or practicality
ought to be the ideal and polestar of gay politics."
Richard Mohr, Gay Ideas: Outing and Other Controversies, Beacon, 1992, pg. 94.
The legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin explained how ideas that many ideas once seen
as radical will come to be seen as obviously true:
"They appeared in law school classrooms and law review articles, then as lawyers'
arguments in particular cases at law, then as judicial arguments in dissenting opinions
explaining why the majority opinion, reflecting the orthodoxy of the time, was unsatisfactory,
then as the opinions of the majority in a growing number of cases, and then as propositions
no longer mentioned because they went without saying."
--Ronald Dworkin, Laws Empire, Harvard University, 1986, pg. 137.
Legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart:
"No doubt it is true that if deviations from conventional sexual morality are tolerated by
the law and come to be known, the conventional sexual morality might change in a permissive
direction. But even if the conventional morality did so change, the society in question would
not have been destroyed or 'subverted.' We should compare such a development not to the
violent overthrow of government but to a peaceful Constitutional change in its form, consistent
not only with the preservation of a society but with its advance."
--H.L.A. Har, Law, Liberty, and Morality, Stanford University, 1963, pg. 52.
Gay legal theorist William Eskridge:
"We are gender rebels because that role has been thrust upon us by oppressive
dividing practices, including legal discriminations like the exclusion from marriage. If those
dividing practices were to collapse, we might tend to meld back into society's mainstream,
which does not inevitably strike me as baleful."
...William Eskridge, "A History of Same-Sex Marriage," Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79
(1993), pg. 1490.
In response to some gay activists who worry that marriage will somehow create a
classes of "good" vs. "bad" gay men and lesbians:
"I am under whelmed by this argument."
--William Eskridge, "A History of Same-Sex Marriage," Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79
(1993), pg. 1492.
In response to the charge that gay men have much more to gain from marriage than
do lesbians, the gay legal philosopher William Eskridge responds: "Lesbians are often the
plaintiffs in same-sex marriage lawsuits, and the overwhelming majority of same-sex couples
who have actually obtained marriage licenses in the United States have been women,
including women passing as men and lesbians of color."
--William Eskridge, "A History of Same-Sex Marriage," Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79
(1993), pg. 1492.
190
And finally:
"Once those repressed by dividing practices such as this one recognize that their
isolation is unnecessary as well as hurtful, they resist it. And once they resist, there is hell to
pay until the system relents, which it ought to do promptly."
--William Eskridge, "A History of Same-Sex Marriage," Virginia Law Review, Vol. 79
(1993), pg. 1507.
"THE "GAY ELITE" is a myth. A new University of Maryland study to be released
today, found gay workers earn less than others in the same jobs. Gay men earn 11% to 27%
less than heterosexual men of similar age, occupation, marital status and residence.
Lesbians earn 5% to 14% less.
--Labor Letter, A Special News Report on People and Their Jobs in Offices, Fields
and Factories, The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 16, 1994.
191
Appendix F-2
A. "NOT-SO-STRAIGHT NEWS"
THE CAY GENE
Not only is scientific integrity compro-
mised in such studies, journalistic credibil-
Not-so-straight news
ity is, too. Mr. Hamer once told a meeting
of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays, "If you tell the press what to write
about a scientific study, they'l write it" He
"Reporting" on genetic research tells only half the story
added that when he told the press that
homosexuality is like being lefi-handed. it
dutifully reported his analogy:
CAL THOMAS
Press stories don't mention that Mr
Why has most of the press become a
Hamer was reassigned to other areas of
shill for the gay rights movement? Fear is
he "discovery" of "new evi-
research, such as smoking and cancer. after
one answer. Most liberals don't want to be
T
dence" of a "gay gene" was
ethical questions arose. Or that co.
labeled "intolerant" and shy away from any
trumpeted on the front page of
researcher David Fulker told the Chicago
moral code that doesn't support their
The Washington Post as a sci-
Tribune on June 25, "If the second study
political comfort level. But perhaps the
entific breakthrough equiva-
were the first study, it wouldn't have been
main reason is that the establishment
lent to a cure for cancer. But the story is
published. The second study is not strong
media have developed a relationship with
another exercise in the uncritical report-
enough [statistically] to stand on its min."
the political objectives of gay-rights
ing" by most of the major media when it
The Post story tells of researchers "con-
activism that has shamefully compro-
comes to homosexuality and an example of
firming and [extending]
the
discovery
mised their ability to report objectively
the loss of credibility the press suffers when
that hereditary factors apparently predis-
and fairly on the issue.
it climbs into bed with an advocacy group.
pose some men to homosexuality:" But is it
The story quotes another "study" by
good science for scientists to confirm and
E
vidence of this compromise is every-
Dear. Hamer, 2 molecular biologist at the
extend their own original findings? Such
where, from the open recruitment of
National Cancer Institute. One might ask
findings must be confirmed by other scien-
gay journalists" to a convention of
the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists
Association meeting in Washington last
month. A copy of the program shows that
not only were representatives of major
press organizations in attendance as partic-
ipants, they also contributed substantially
to the cost of the event. Their names were
listed in the program.
The Washington Post contributed $2.500
to the convention and underwrote a
National Press Club awards reception. The
New York Times kicked in $5,000 and
cosponsored (along with NBC News. an
$8,000 contributor) a luncheon with the
Minority Journalism Association presi-
dents.
Other mainstream media underwriters
included Knight-Ridder ($15,000). The
Gannett Foundation ($10,000). CBS News
($7,500), the Los Angeles Times ($5,000).
ABC News Washington Bureau ($3,000).
Hearst Newspapers, and The Miami Herald
($2.500 each).
At the gay journalists meeting: Clinton adviser George aphanopoulos, left, and Rep. Barney Frank.
Would anyone imagine such press
why federal funds targeted for cancer
tists. Mr. Hamer, who published his origi-
giants making contributions to, or cavort-
research are being diverted for another
nai conclusions in Science magazine, chose
ing with, the Christian Coalition? What-
purpose. but the Post doesn't.
another publication, Nature Genetics, for
ever happened to press ethics' Whatever
The Post fails to mention that Mr.
his latest conclusions.
happened to the arm's-length separation
Hamer's wideh; trumpeted 1993 gay gene"
The Post notes that the second study,
journalists were supposed to observe
study is under investigation for alleged
unlike the first, reports on a control group
between themselves and the subjects they
fraud by the federal Office of Research
of heterosexual brothers, but downplays
cover?
Integrity and that a colleague of Mr. Hamer
the fact that 22 percent of the non-gay
Never has it been more necessary for
has charged that Mr. Hamer selectively
brothers had the same genetic markers. If
the public to analyze the information it
reported data in ways that enhanced the
Mr. Hamer's conclusion is that genetic
receives from the media in order to deter-
study's thesis. Nor does the press report on
makeup determines homosexuality, why
mine whether it is truth or propaganda
Mr. Hamer's own homosexuality; which
isn't this fifth of the sample of non-gay sub-
Increasingly, when it comes to homosexu-
migh: indicate to some readers that he has
jects gay? Mr. Hamer also has never
ality, the press cannot be trusted.
a bias in favor of discovering a biological
explained why he did not include a hetero-
cause for homosexual behavior
sexual control group in his first study:
© 1995. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
WORLD NOVEMBER
Reprinted with permission from World, Asheville, North Carolina, phone 1-800-951-6397.
193
Appendix F-2
B. ACLU PRESS RELEASE
PRESS
HAWAIT
AMER CAN CIVIL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
LIBER FIES UNION
October 27, 1993
Vanessa Y. Chong
Executive Director
OF HAWAII
(808) 545-1722
Pos: Office Box 3410
Honolulu Hawaii RG801
COALITION FORMS TO SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
T: 608 545. 1722
AND
F: 608 - 545 2993
OPPOSE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
A coalition of community organizations went public
President
Colun M. Fritz
today to announce their support of the same-scx
VICA President
marriage case and to oppose a movement for a state
Pamale Q. sighty
constitutional amendment.
Secretary
Patrick Thomae
RECOUPT
The ACLU of Howaii is coordinating the work of the
Pat M. Hammers
Coalition. Executive Director Vanessa Chong said, "The
Namera Representative
Roger W. Fonseca
Coalition formed to defend Hawai'i's unique and
Executive Committee Member
fundamental traditions of diversity, tolerance,
A. dons Wallane
acceptance of different cultures and lifestyle, and a
Members c' the Bos'c
commitment to equality."
Bemice E. Coleman
Mark S. Devis
The groups issued a joint statement (attached) and will
Thomas P. Oill
Mancy N. Orekin
be testifying at a hearing in Honolulu this Friday,
durie Huge
October 29th, on same-sex marriage.
Tom Humphreys
Andy M. lehib'
The House Judiciary Committee has been holding
MHes M. Jackson
Engabeth Rent
informational hearings state-wide since September. The
- -
Lunstond Date PRIUIDE
turn out has been large. No legislation is being
Merina Sapolu
proposed, but some are calling for a state
RICE Schnelder
constitutional amendment.
C. sign
two, M. Weightman
The Coalition is especially urging all citizens to
EXECUTIVE Director
contact the House Judiciary Chair, Representative
Vanessa Y Chang
legs Director
Terrance Tom.
Carl M. Varady
Program Diecic
"Every voice of reason counts. The case should get its
are Wilson
full day in court. We'rc going to fight any attempt to
subvert the judicial process", said Chong.
-30-
Attachments: Joint Statement
- List of Organizations
Considers to INC ACLU
. - Reunsellen ore
- - -
194
Appendix F-2
C. SELECTED QUOTATIONS
"Approximately thirty per cent of male homosexuals who come to psychotherapy for
any reason (not just for help with their sexual preference) can be converted to the
neterosexual adaptation.
--Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (New York: The Seabury
Press), 1977, pg. 97.
In 1952, Dr. Irving Bieber supervised a nine-year project studying male homosexuality.
There were 77 members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts who supplied information
on two patient samples--106 homosexual males and 100 heterosexual males. The outcome?
"Of 106 homosexuals who undertook psychoanalysis 29 (27 percent) became exclusively
heterosexual..
-Dr. Irving Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study (New York: Basic Books),
1962, pg. 301.
"During a ten-year period, from 1967 to 1977, I have treated psychoanalytically 55
overt homosexuals One can report that the forty-four overt homosexuals who have
undergone psychoanalytic therapy, twenty patients, nearly 50 percent, developed full
heterosexual functioning and were able to develop love feelings for their heterosexual
partners."
--Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson), 1978, pp.
405-406.
"Five years after publishing our study, a follow-up of patients showed that the one-third
whose adaptation had shifted to heterosexuality remained SO. And we have personally
followed some patients for as long as 20 years who remained exclusively heterosexual."
--Morey, Tom, Committee to Study Homosexuality of the United Methodist Church,
General Conference of Ministries, Chicago Meeting on the Sciences, August 1990,
pg. 19.
"About eighty percent of homosexual men and women in Syntonic Therapy have been
able to free themselves and achieve a healthy and satisfying heterosexual adjustment
These individuals were selected as follows: (1) They were not psychotic and they had the
ability to work and function as self-supporting people. (2) They were not psychopathic and
they had the ability to experience the emotions of fear and guilt and to be aware that they
were not fulfilling their human potential. (3) They came to therapy for themselves, and not to
please someone else. (4) They were able to direct their aggression therapeutically and were
able to learn to work with themselves, between sessions, when in anxiety or panic states,
rather than act out their problem homosexually. (5) They were strongly enough motivated to
go through the inevitable rough spots of change without quitting, staying till they had resolved
their problems."
-Robert Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, Inc.), 1908, pg. 135.
195
"Recently I have worked with seven male homosexuals and three lesbians. The
outcome of the therapy of these ten patients has been a successful reorientation in their
sexual practices to heterosexuality in seven cases In evaluating these patients, I found that
the classification or the degree of homosexuality was not a factor in the effectiveness of the
"therapy."
--Dr. William pg. Wilson, What You Should Know About Homosexuality, edited by Charles
W. Keysor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), 1979, pg. 164.
Masters and Johnson worked with sixty-seven male homosexuals and fourteen
lesbians who asked for conversion or reversion therapy to heterosexuality and said their
failure rate was 28.4% after a follow-up of six years (pg. 402) In treating sexual
dysfunction in heterosexuals their failure rate was 20%. (pg. 408)
William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston:
Little, Brown and Company), 1979, pgs. 402 and 408.
"
Homosexuality has a 30 to 50 per cent chance of reversing with psychiatric
treatment." (pg. 519)
"
Combined therapy with homogeneous groups has been the treatment of choice
The rate of recovery among the homosexuals treated in these groups is 49 per cent." (pg.
532)
--Dr. Toby Bieber, "Group Therapy with Homosexuals," Comprehensive Group
Psychotherapy, edited by Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Saddock (Baltimore: The
Williams and Wilkins Company), 1971.
Eleven men, ages 21 through 35, claimed they changed their sexual orientation "from
exclusive and active homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality through participation in a
Pentecostal church fellowship. None of these men had ever sought professional treatment for
their psychiatric reasons or for their homosexuality. The church had a crisis service for
homosexuals which gave these men 'a welcome reception as homosexuals. No attempt was
made to make them change their homosexuality. Rather, they were presented with the
invitation to commit their life to Christ and the church. All subjects had an explicit Christian
conversion or rededication. They were then invited into small church groups where they
studied the Bible and learned expected Biblical patterns of mature lifestyle. This included an
expectation to engage in loving, nonerotic relationships with both men and women in the
fellowship groups. (pg. 1558)
"None of the subjects claimed a miraculous deliverance but rather 'the gradual
diminution of their homosexual drives " (pg. 1555) Supervisor of the study, Dr. E. Mansell
Pattison stated "that 8 of our 11 subjects amply demonstrated a 'cure.' The remaining 3
subjects had a major behavioral and intrapsychic shift to heterosexual behavior, but the
persistence of homosexual impulses was still significant." (pg. 1560)
"Thus, all subjects in our sample demonstrated a strikingly profound shift in sexual
orientation." (pg. 1555)
"The evidence suggest that cognitive change occurs first, followed by behavioral
change, and finally intrapsychic resolution." (pg. 1562)
--E. Mansel Pattison and Myrna Loy Pattison, "Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated
Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, December 1980.
196
Psychologist Dr. Gerald van den Aardweg has counselled homosexuals for more than
20 years. In an extensive analysis of the 101 homosexual men he's worked with, he said, "Of
those who continued treatment--60 percent of the total group--about two-thirds reached at
least a satisfactory state of affairs for a long period of tome, By this is meant that the
homosexual feelings had been reduced to occasional impulses at most while the sexual
orientation had turned predominantly heterosexual, or that the homosexual feelings were
completely absent, with or without predominance of heterosexual interests. Of this group,
however, about one-third could be regarded as having been changed 'radically.' By interests
this is meant that they did not have any more homosexual interests but had normal
heterosexual feelings... (pgs. 105-106)
"These results are still farm from perfect, but the radically changed cases--from
complete homosexuality to normal heterosexuality--refute the theory that therapy of
homosexuality is pointless (pg. 107)
--Gerald van den Aardweg, Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and
Change (Ann Arbor: Servant Books), 1986.
Dr. Edmund Bergler (graduated from Vienna's Medical School; served on staff at
Freud Clinic from 1927-1937).
"In nearly thirty years, I have successfully concluded analyses of one hundred
homosexuals and have seen nearly five hundred cases in consultation. On the basis of
the experience thus gathered, I make the positive statement that homosexuality has an
excellent prognosis in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment of one to two years' duration, with
a minimum of three appointments each week--provided the patient really wishes to change."
(pg 176)
&
And cure denotes not bisexuality, but real and unfaked heterosexuality." (pg. 279)
The color of a person's eyes cannot be changed therapeutically, but homosexuality can be
changed by psychotherapy." (pg. 166).
--Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life (New York: Collier Books), 1962.
Dr. Bernard Berkowitz, Mildred Newman and Jean Owen (Berkowitz got his Ph.D. from
New York University. Newman graduated from Hunter College; she trained with Theodore
Reik; she completed analytic training at the National Psychological Association for
Psychoanalysis.)
"Analysts once thought they had little chance of changing homosexuals' preferences
and had little success in that direction. But some refused to accept that and kept working
with them, and we've found that a homosexual who really wants to change has a very good
change of doing so. Now we're hearing all kinds of success stories."
How to be Your Own Best Friend (New York: Lark Publishing Company), 1971, pp. 22-
23.
Dr. Toby B. Bieber (Ph.D. from Columbia University; lecturer in psychology at New
York University; clinical instructor in psychiatry at New York Medical College).
"Few, if any, homosexuals are satisfied with their condition, whether or not this is
consciously admitted. Those who cling to their homosexual orientation and avoid
contemplating possibilities for change are, by and large, chronically depressed, although
197
episodes of gloom and despair may be rationalized to other situations. Strident public
declarations about happy homosexuality are evidence of denial mechanisms "
--Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy, edited by Harold 1. Kaplan and Benjamin J.
Saddock (Baltimore: the Williams and Wilkins Company), 1971, pg. 521.
Dr. Anna Freud (studied with her father Sigmund Freud)
In 1950, Dr. Anna Freud, "lectured in New York on the recent advances in treatment of
homosexuals, stating that many of her patients lost their inversion as a result of analysis.
This occurred even in those who had proclaimed their wish to remain homosexual when
entering treatment, having started only to obtain relief from their homosexual symptoms."
--Dr. Charles Socarides, "Homosexuality," American Handbook of Psychiatry, 2nd edition,
Vol. 3 (New York: Basic Books, Inc.), 1974, pg. 308.
Dr. Samuel Hadden (was associate professor of Psychiatry at University of
Pennsylvania Medical School; pioneered use of group therapy in helping homosexuals).
"While there is little doubt that the homosexual is difficult to treat and is prone to break
off treatment if psychotherapists themselves come to adopt a less pessimistic attitude and
view homosexuality simply as a pattern of maladaptation, greater numbers of such patients
will be significantly helped."
-Samuel B. Hadden, "Treatment of Male Homosexuals in Groups," The International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, XVI, No. 1, Jan. 1966, pg. 14.
In another article, Dr. Hadden states that not all mental health professionals are
actually qualified to help the homosexual. For treatment to be successful, "a vital factor is
the therapist's attitude toward a particular disorder and those afflicted by it. If, for example,
he feels that some aberrations cannot be successfully treated or feels any distaste for treating
the condition, he will communicate his pessimism and dislike to the patient and failure is
air. ost inevitable."
--"A Way Out for Homosexuals," Harper's Magazine, March 1967, pg. 107.
Dr. Lawrence J. Hatterer (M.D. from Columbia Medical School; basic psychiatric
training at New York Medical College; served as Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at
Cornell Medical School).
"Over the past seventeen years I have evaluated 710 males troubled and untroubled
by a vast spectrum of homosexually fantasy, impulse, act, and milieu. Since 1953 I have
successfully and unsuccessful treated well over 200 of them I have also collected two to
fifteen year follow-ups on some patients. Of this group, forty-nine patients recovered,
nineteen partially recovered, seventy-six remained homosexual." (pgs. vii, viii)
:
Other therapists who have specialized in research and treatment of men troubled
by homosexuality reported 23 per cent to 28 per cent of the motivated patients totally capable
of a heterosexual readaptation. (pg. 94)
"
I've heard of hundreds of other men who went from a homosexual to a heterosexual
adjustment on their own. (pg. 138)
198
A large undisclosed population has melted into heterosexual society, persons who
behaved homosexuality in late adolescence and early adulthood, and who, on their own,
resolved their conflicts and abandoned such behavior to go on to successful marriages or to
bisexual patterns of adaptation. (pg. 14)
-Changing Homosexuality in the Male (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company), 1970.
Dr. Arthur Janov (psychologist and psychiatric social worker at Los Angeles Children's
Hospital; consultant to California Narcotic Outpatient Program; developed Primal Scream
program.)
"I do not believe that there is a basic genetic homosexual tendency in man. If this
were true, the cured patient would still have his homosexual needs, which he does not. (pg.
328)
"The homosexual act is not a sexual one. It is based on the denial of real sexuality
and the acting out symbolically through sex of a need for love The homosexual has
usually eroticized his need so that he appears to be highly sexed. Bereft of his sexual fix, his
lover, he is like an addict without his connection; without his lover, he is in the pain that is
always there but which is drained off sexually. But sex is not his goal--love is. (pg. 322)
"I have found that homosexual habits that have persisted for years have faded away in
the face of reality." (pg. 322)
--The Primal Scream (New York: Dell Publishing Company), 1970.
Dr. Jeffrey Keefe (Ph.D. in psychology from Fordham University; interned at Bellevue
Psychiatric Hospital; worked at Staten Island Mental Health, St. Vincent Medical Center;
taught at Notre Dame).
"Can homosexuals change their orientation? The fact, reported in the literature,
proves the possibility. I have seen some homosexuals in treatment--and have met more
former homosexuals (including those who were exclusively so)--who now respond physically
and emotionally as heterosexuals in successful marriages. Movement toward the
heterosexual end of the Kinsey scale ordinarily requires strong motivation on the client's part,
a skilled therapist, and unfortunately more often than not, financial resources
--Father John F. Harvey, The Homosexual Person New Thinking in Pastoral Care (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press), 1987, pg. 76.
Dr. Judd Marmor (M.D. from Columbia University; served as resident neurologist at
Montefiore Hospital; president of the American Psychiatric Association; president of American
Academy of Psychoanalysis).
"The myth that homosexuality is untreatable still has wide currency among the public
at large and among homosexuals themselves
"There is little doubt that a genuine shift in preferential sex object choice can and does
take place in somewhere between 20 and 50 per cent of patients with homosexual behavior
who seek psychotherapy with this end in mind. The single most important prerequisite to
reversibility is a powerful motivation to achieve such a change."
199
"Although some gay liberationists argue that it would be preferable to help these
persons accept their homosexuality, this writer is of the opinion that, if they wish to change,
they deserve the opportunity to try, with all the help that psychiatry can give them "
"Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbances," Comprehensive Textbook of
Psychiatry II, second edition, edited by Alfred M. Freedman, Harold I Kaplan, and
Benjamin J. Saddock (Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company), 1975, pg.
1519.
Masters and Johnson (Dr. William H. Masters--M.D. from University of Rochester;
served as Professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology for the School of Medicine of
Washington University, Director of the Reproductive Biological Research Foundation and Co-
director and Chairman of the Board of the Masters and Johnson Institute. Virginia E. Johnson
studied at University of Missouri; Research Director of the Reproductive Biological Research
Foundation, Co-director of the Masters and Johnson Institute).
"No longer should the qualified psychotherapist avoid the responsibility of either
accepting the homosexual client in treatment or referring him or her to an acceptable
treatment source."
Dr. E. Mansell Pattison (studied at University of Oregon and University of Cincinnati;
worked for the National Institutes of Mental Health; taught at Georgetown University,
University of Washington, The University of California at Irvine and the Department of
Psychiatry and Human Behavior of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta).
Dr. Charles W. Socarides, M.D. (Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Albert Einstein
College of Medicine; in 1995 received Distinguished Professor award from the Association of
Psychoanalytic Psychologists, British Health Service; current President of National
Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [N.A.R.T.H.])
"Even the most serious cases of homosexuality will yield to therapy if the patient seeks
therapy when he feels severely distressed about being homosexual, not only because of guilt
or shame but because he finds his homosexual life meaningless (pg. 418)
"There is at present sufficient evidence that in a majority of cases homosexuality can
be successfully treated by psychoanalysis (pg. 3)
"While I can minimize neither the hard work and resoluteness required of the
psychoanalyst in treating this serious disorder, nor the courage and endurance required of the
patient, a successful resolution brings reward fully commensurate with their labors." (pg. 6)
--Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson), 1978.
Dr. William pg. Wilson (M.D. from Duke University; served as president of the
Southern Psychiatric Association; chairman of the nuerology/psychiatry section of the
American Medical Association).
"Treatment using dynamic individual psychotherapy, group therapy, aversion therapy,
or psychotherapy with an integration of Christian principles will produce object-choice
reorientation and successful heterosexual relationships in a high percentage of persons
Homosexuals can change their orientation."
--What You Should Know About Homosexuality, edited by Charles W. Keysor (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House), 1979, pg. 167.
200
Appendix G
SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
Polls show Americans often initially resent equal rights being extended to people, but
that this opposition recedes in time. Also, in some cases of equal rights, many Americans
may report private opposition towards some group of people, but Americans will also often
stand up for making sure the government treats everyone equally.
For example, in 1954 the States of Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina
voted, sometimes by more than two-to-one margins of the voters, to amend their constitutions
to allow for selling off all of the public schools so that the schools could be privatized, or other
schemes, to permit school desegregation to continue after the Federal Brown V. Board of
Education case (see the New York Times, December 22, 1954, page 1). Even in the northern
state of Delaware, a poll indicated over 98% opposed school integration (New York Times,
November 23, 1954, page 49). Yet, over time, these numbers and hard feelings have
declined.
A high level of national disapproval exists in polling data against gays and lesbians,
with polls showing a disapproval rate of 50% to 77%, depending on how the poll was phrased
(see Susan Hibbard's 1994 survey of polls, page 2); see also the Commission minority's
selective poll results included later in this appendix.. At the same time, approximately three-
quarters of Americans feel that gays and lesbians should have equal employment rights, and
a typical response is that "homosexuality is wrong, but it should be legal" (Hibbard, page 2).
For example, in a February 3, 1994, Hawaii poll, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported
that "52 percent said allowing gays and lesbians to legally wed would make no difference in
Hawaii's image" (page A-1). In a national poll released by People for the American Way, 62
percent said intolerance and discrimination against lesbian and gay people is a serious
problem, and 65 percent said "the government should not concern itself with the morality of
private activity, such as sexual orientation." Likewise, a poll conducted for the U.S. News and
World Report found that two-thirds of voters favor ensuring equal rights for gay people and
preventing discrimination against gays, with a majority of every demographic subgroup
supporting the idea -- including those who voted for Clinton, Bush and Perot (from Humans
Rights Campaign Fund report of national polls).
Likewise, a 1994 poll by the Public Agenda Foundation found that 61 percent of
Americans believe it is appropriate for public schools to teach "respect for people who are
homosexual" (as reported in the Washington Blade, October 21, 1994).
People are concerned about discrimination because they believe that gays and
lesbians are being discriminated against. A 1992 national poll found that 93% said that
homosexuals face discrimination and prejudice, with only 4% saying they experienced no
discrimination. In a 1993 New York state survey of eight Republican state senate districts
found that a minimum of two-thirds of voters, of every age group, political party, ideology and
gender, answered yes when asked if gays and lesbians face discrimination (Hibbard, page 5).
Americans respect civil rights. From the days of opposition to African-Americans in the
1950s, Americans today have moved to a general approval of basic human rights for all
citizens. For example, while polls show a majority personally opposed to homosexuality in
1993, 42%-53% of various polls agreed that the laws which protect the human and civil rights
for other minorities (e.g., racial and religious minorities, some polls included women) should
201
be extended to include gay men and lesbians. A 1993 poll for the Times Mirror publishing
company found that 83% felt that "protecting the rights of gays and lesbians" was either
somewhat, very, or critically important (Hibbard, page 8).
Whether someone wanted the government to discriminate against gays and lesbians
had a lot to do with the person's gender, age, education level, and acquaintance with lesbians
and gays. Women, younger adults, people with higher educations, and those who know gay
friends or family members all tend to oppose discrimination more strongly and are more likely
to support legislation assisting gays and lesbians (Hibbard, page 1).
A 1993 New York Times/CBS poll asked if homosexuality was "an acceptable
alternative lifestyle or not?" Those that found it a more acceptable lifestyle included those 18-
44 years old, women, and those with some college (or college graduates). Those over 44
years old, men, and those with high school (or less) education found homosexuality more of
an unacceptable lifestyle (Hibbard, page 17).
A 1992 poll of Colorado, which was then considering an anti-gay initiative on its ballot,
also found that the strongest support for the anti-gay effort came from persons over 44 years
old, men, and those with high school (or less) education. Support for gay rights came
particularly from those 35-44 years old, women, and those with a college degree (Hibbard,
page 17). A follow-up Colorado poll in 1993 had similar results. Those in favor of
governmental discrimination against gays and lesbians were primarily those over 65 years old,
men, those with high school or less education. The poll also found that Republicans and
Whites tended to be against gay rights. On the other hand, those against the discrimination
were primarily those 25-44 years old, women, college-graduates, Democrats, and non-whites
(Hibbard, page 17).
In 1992 Oregon also considered an initiative that would discriminate against gays and
lesbians. Those more in favor again tended to be older folks, men, and Republicans. Those
most strongly against the discrimination were those 18-44 years old, women, Democrats and
Independents (Hibbard, page 17).
202
FIVE HAWAII POLLS ON LEGALIZING SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE"
MARGIN
DATE 1
QUESTION
RESULTS
OF ERROR
WHO
POLL
SOURCE
Should gay couples be
YES-34%
4.9%
425
Political
Star-Bulletin
April 3-7, 1991
allowed to marry?
NO-49%
registered
Mcdia
KGMB-Ch.9
Star-Bulletin 4/24/91
NOT SURE 17%
volers
Research
Do you favor or oppose
FAVOR-30%
5%
419
Political
Star-Bulletin
June 4-7, 1993
gay marriages in
OPPOSE- 61%
registered
Media
Star-Bulletin 6/19/93
Hawaii?
UNSURE- 9%
voters
Research
203
Do you approve or
APPROVE-31%
5%
423
Political
Star-Bulletin
Oct. 21-23, 1993
disapprove of a proposed
DISAPPROVE-
registered
Media
Star-Bulletin 11/6/93
legislative bill legalizing
58%
voters
Research
same-sex marriages?
UNSURE-11%
Should same-sex couples
YES-25%
4%
605
SMS Research/
Honolulu
Feb. 12-17, 1994
be allowed to marry in
NO-67%
Hawaii
Marketing
Advertiser/
Advertiser 2/28/94
Hawaii?
DONT KNOW
residents
Services Inc.
KHON-Ch.2
8%
YES-24%
3.5%
800
SMS Research/
Honolulu
July 19-29, 1994
Should Hawaii allow two
NO-68%
Hawaii
Marketing
Advertiser/
Advertiser 8/4/94
people of the same sex
DONT KNOW
residents
Services Inc.
KHON-Ch.2
to get married?
OR REFUSED
8%
Appendix H
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS
1.
Memorandum from Thomas P. Gill to Commissioners, August 31, 1995
207
2.
Memorandum from Thomas P. Gill to Commissioners, October 2, 1995
209
3.
Memorandum from Thomas P. Gill to Commissioners, October 9, 1995
210
4.
Letter from James Hochberg to Chairman Gill, October 10, 1995
211
5.
Letter from Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon to Chairman Gill, October 11, 1995
215
6.
Memorandum from Thomas P. Gill to Commissioners, October 18, 1995
217
7.
Letter from James Hochberg to Chairman Gill, October 25, 1995
219
8.
Letter from Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon to Chairman Gill, October 27, 1995
223
9.
Memorandum from Thomas P. Gill to Commissioners, October 30, 1995
227
10.
Letter from Thomas P. Gill to Marie A. Sheldon, October 31, 1995
229
11.
Letter from James Hochberg to Chairman Gill, October 31, 1995
231
12.
Letter from James Hochberg to Chairman Gill, November 15, 1995
233
13.
Letter from James Hochberg to Chairman Gill, November 30, 1995
235
14.
Letter from Morgan Britt to Commissioners, December 3, 1995
239
205
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau, 1177 Alakea St., 6th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96813
/
Phone: (808) 587-0666; Facsimile: (808) 587-0681
Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson
Morgan Brill
L Ku'umeaaloha Gomes
Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr.
Nanci Kreidman
Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon
Robert H. Stauffer
August 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Members, Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
FROM:
Thomas P. Gill
Chairman
SUBJECT:
Introductory Material for Distribution
Enclosed is a list of items being distributed to members of the Commission so that
we can familiarize ourselves with some of the issues and points of view we will need to consider.
The items include:
1. The Baehr V. Lewin decision. 74 Haw. 530 (1993). Note highlighted portions on
pages 560 and 561 regarding rights and benefits effected.
2. The Attorney General's letter dated May 15, 1995 regarding Chapter 92 (Sunshine
Law) as it relates to casual meetings of members of the Commission.
3. The Interim Report of the prior Commission. (A more complete version of
Appendix B should be available by the first meeting.)
4. The enabling act of the Commission, Act 5, Session Laws of Hawaii 1995, and
related committee reports.
5. The enabling act of the prior commission, Act 217, Session Laws of Hawaii 1994.
6. August 1995 Special Report of the Spectrum Institute "Legalization of Same-Sex
Marriage is Sure Bet in Hawaii-Or is it?"
7. McGivern V. Waihee, January 13, 1995, court order invalidating participation of
four members of the prior commission.
8. The New Mexico "gender neutral" marriage law (N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 40.1.1)
along with some subsequent sections and annotations.
9. An article from the Hawaii Bar Journal (February 1995) discussing some of the
issues in opposition to same-sex marriage.
207
Members, Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the Law
-2-
August 31, 1995
10. "God's Way", an unsolicited statement received from Evangelist C.F. Woodard.
11. An analysis of Domestic Partnership ordinances in existence (Special Report,
Spectrum Institute).
12. Possible draft legislation for a Domestic Partnership law in Hawaii.
13. Official notice and agenda for September 13, 1995 meeting.
A proposed meeting schedule of once every two weeks will be discussed at the first
meeting. Meeting days and times will be arranged to accommodate each commission member's
schedule. Schedules may be modified in the future as needed.
If you have any material that you would like to distribute to the Commission at its first
meeting, please contact Pamela Martin at 587-0666.
Thank you for responding to our letter of August 21st. It appears that the meeting
date and place was agreeable to all members. The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday,
September 13, 1995, in the State Office Tower, Senate Caucus Room, 6th Floor. A parking permit
for the meters at lolani Palace on the Capitol side is enclosed. Be sure to display the permit on
your dashboard.
TPG:mm
Enclosures
208
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau, 1177 Alakea St., 6th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 587-0666; Facsimile: (808) 587-0681
Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson
Morgan Britt
L Ku'umeaaloha Gomes
Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr.
Nanci Kreidman
Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon
Robert H. Stauffer
October 2, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Commission Members
FROM:
Thomas P. Gill
Chairperson
SUBJECT: Procedure for Inviting Witnesses to Testify
It would seem, based on our meeting of September 27, that it would be helpful
to all of US to have a more orderly procedure for inviting witnesses to testify. I have these
suggestions:
The next meeting on October 11 will, after voting on the matters considered at
the last meeting, hear testimony on the second item in Section 3 of Act 5: "Examine the
substantial public policy reasons to extend or not to extend such benefits in part or in total to
same-sex couples;". We need as wide a range of testimony as we can get, particularly from
local organizations, churches or religious groups which could be affected by or have positions
on the extension of such benefits. Since, at this point, public participation in the hearings has
been quite limited I hope each member will help to expand our list of "invited guests". As
indicated in our last agenda we have made some contacts and others are being pursued. We-
would appreciate having the names and affiliations of persons who are willing to appear
submitted to the LRB by Friday, the 6th, so they can be circulated to the commission
members before the 11th. If a person cannot appear on the 11th, we can hold time at the
following meeting on October 25.
There are two categories where we need assistance: (1) trust officers or others
in the private sector who administer health, retirement, or other funds which might be affected
by the extension of such benefits; and (2) churches or religious groups which oppose, or are
likely to oppose such extension of benefits. Since Commissioner Hochberg has expressed an
interest-in item (1) and through his connection with the Rutherford Institute and the Episcopal
Church could have access to organizations covered in item (2), I would strongly suggest that
he help us with names of witnesses who are willing to testify. We will also reserve a space for
Mr. Makuakane who did not appear at the last meeting. We will also continue our efforts to
find such witnesses. Please call Ms. Martin if you need information.
The suggestion was made that we find witnesses from, or hold hearings on the
neighbor islands. Our time and funding limitations do not permit hearings off island, but if
any of you have witnesses from other islands who are willing to appear at our meetings,
please let Ms. Martin know at once.
Also, we expect to submit to you, before the next meeting, a draft of proposed
findings based on the research and the testimony submitted regarding the "major legal and
economic benefits" considered to date. It would be helpful if proposed amendments or
alternate findings were reduced to writing for consideration by commission members on
October 11. Thank you for your assistance.
209
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau, 1177 Alakea St., 6th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 587-0666; Facsimile: (808) 587-0681
Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson
Morgan Britt
L Ku'umeaaloha Gomes
Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr.
Nanci Kreidman
Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon
Robert H. Stauffer
October 9, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Thomas P. Gill
Chairperson
Commission Members Jmgius
SUBJECT:
Decision Making, October 11 Meeting
Our Agenda for the third meeting to be held this coming Wednesday,
October 11, states, as to the first part of the meeting, that we will " vote on the 'major legal
and economic benefits extended to married opposite-sex couples, but not to same-sex
couples."
I am suggesting that this vote be limited to the general concepts covered so
far, including acceptance of the LRB list of such benefits prepared under instructions from the
last commission. A resolution to this end is included for your consideration.
The LRB, and the members of the Commission, have also received a number
of draft motions prepared by Dr. Stauffer relating to specific benefits being identified. The
motions are lengthy and quite detailed and will no doubt be of assistance in the drafting of the
Commission's report. However, our current schedule provides that our fifth meeting on
November 8 will include discussion of the contents of the draft report, and receiving public
testimony on it. I suggest it would be appropriate to include these current motions, and any
other suggestions by Commission members, in that November 8 discussion.
Also please note that at the coming meeting on October 11, one of our
members, Ms. Kreidman, will not be able to be present, and under current rules will not be
able to vote by proxy. It will be more productive, as well as fair to allow her to review the
various suggestions and vote when the time comes.
Any of you who have language or items you would like to see included in the
Commission's report, whether it will be a majority or minority position, should draft and
circulate this material as soon as possible so it can be fully considered at the November 8th
and subsequent meetings.
Thank you for your assistance.
210
JAMES HOCHBERG
1188 Bishop Street, Suite 1610
Henchulu. Hawaii 96813
(808) 536-1777; FAX 528-3631
October 10, 1995
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Chairman, Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau
1177 Alakea Street, 6th Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Re:
Objections to proposed procedure for October 11,
1995 Commission meeting
Dear Mr. Gill:
As a member of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and
the Law, I am concerned about your proposed procedure for the
October 11, 1995 meeting. It is important to me that the
Commission conduct its work with the openness required of our
commission by law, with intellectual honesty in performing our
function, and with unbiased inquiry into the issues we have been
charged with examining. For the reasons stated in this letter, I
suggest that rather than rush to a vote on the "major legal and
economic benefits", that the Commission take the time to evaluate
the items on the list provided by the Legislative Reference
Bureau and vote after we discuse the various items. Otherwise,
our motives appear suspect. The Commission clearly is staffed
with a majority of Commissioners who favor extending marriage
rights to homosexuals, although the balance of interests on the
Commission do not correlate to the balance of interests on these
issues in the community. As Commissioners, we are charged with
performing this function on behalf of the entire community and
not solely the homosexual activists.
Specifically, my objections are based on the following:
1.
The Commission has not discussed nor analyzed the 15 page
listing of statute sections which the Legislative Reference
Bureau attorney collected.
2.
We have not considered or determined whether there are any
errors in the list due to the author's interpretation, which
may differ from ours.
3.
The author's work was based upon the 1994 Commission's
instructions from the legislature to examine the "precise"
211
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
October 10, 1995
Page 2
legal and economic benefits which accrue to married couples.
However, our Commission has been instructed to examine only
the "major" legal and economic benefits accruing to married
couples. The difference is important as is evidenced by the
definition utilized by the first Commission, namely: to find
every statute that contains "anything contributing to an
improvement in condition or an advantage that a married
couple would have as a result of holding the status
'spouse', 'family' that would not be offered to a same-
gendered couple even though they had the same commitments to
each other as a married couple.' That broad definition does
not address the call to examine the "major" legal and
economic benefits. Consequently, the 15 page list of
statutes must be rejected since it is based on the prior
Commission's definition. The Commission should evaluate the
statutes to determine which create "major" legal and
economic benefits.
4.
At every meeting, I have asked the Commission to define
"major" legal and economic benefits to enable us to properly
evaluate that list of statutes. First you, then the
majority of the Commission refused to do SO. It is a
travesty for this Commission to adopt the 15 page list of
statutes under these circumstances while creating the
appearance of conducting ourselves as a bona fide Commission
under state law. It does not necessarily follow from the
absence of directions from the legislature concerning the
change in the legislative instructions that the change
"indicates no specific difference in the duties assigned to
the present Commission." This thinking ignores the simple
change in meaning which occurs along with the change in
wording. I suggest that the Commission adopt the following
definition of "major legal and economic benefits":
A resultant significant improvement in condition or
resultant significant advantage, after consideration of
concemitant burdens, which a married couple enjoys as a
result of holding the status "spouse" or "family" that
would not be either offered to a same-sex couple nor
available to a same-sex couple by another avenue or
means.
5.
The pro-homosexuality majority of the Commission has voted
to prohibit expert testimony via telephone, when those
identified experts were traditionalists who would opine
against extending marriage benefits to homosexuals.
212
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
October 10, 1995
Page 3
6.
The majority of the Commission is relying on the economic
analysis of Dr. LaCroix who has failed to provide the
assumptions and methodology he used, and who when asked for
that information was unable to provide it although it should
have been the basis for his conclusions.
In summary, there is simply insufficient information
upon which this Commission can fairly adopt your proposed
resolution in an unbiased, intellectually honest manner. I make
this objection in the hope that it will encourage openness,
intellectual honesty, and unbiased inquiry into the issues we
have been charged with examining. This is a very serious matter
for the State of Hawaii.
Sincerely,
Jintochberg
:JH
CC: Governor Benjamin Cayetano
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi
House Speaker Joseph Souki
Commissioners:
Toni Sheldon 524-2556
Nanci Kriedman 531-7228
Morgan Britt 599-1965
Bob Stauffer 237-8042
Ku'uneaalcha Gomes 956-9880
213
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1200
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-2466
Fax: (808) 524-2556
October 11, 1995
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Chairman, Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau
1177 Alakea Street, 6th Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Re: Objections to Proposed Procedure for
October 11, 1995 Commission Meeting
Dear Mr. Gill:
I received a copy of Mr. Hochberg's letter October 10,
1995 letter to you concerning his objections to your proposed
procedure for our October 11, 1995 meeting late in the afternoon of
October 10th.
As a member of the Commission, I share the concerns Mr.
Hochberg expressed in his letter, and believe the bases for his
objections to your proposed procedure are meritorious.
I believe that as Commissioners we are charged with the
responsibility of thoroughly investigating the matters before us
from all aspects, and carefully considering the interests of the
entire community in making our ultimate recommendations to the
Legislature.
In order to properly perform our tasks, it is imperative
that we agree upon a clear definition of "major" legal and economic
benefits, and conduct our investigation of applicable statutes on
that basis. The effects of the Commission's failure to properly
define the parameters of our investigation may be devastating to
the social and economic future of our State. There may be serious
implications that will not be considered if we simply adopt the 15-
page list of statute sections collected by the Legislative
Reference Bureau attorney without further inquiry.
Specific but not exhaustive examples of the effect of our
failure to properly define the parameters of our statute search and
discussion are the following:
1. The responsibilities to itinerant conferred will
not be discussed as the 15-page list does not address them.
2. It appears that no consideration will be given to
the impact that domestic partnerships and/or same sex marriage will
have on the ability of law enforcement and the family court to
215
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
October 11, 1995
Page 2
comply with the requirements of the penal code, such as H.R.S.
$709-906, which sets forth the penalty for abuse of family and
household members as this statute is not included on the 15-page
list.
3. It appears that no consideration will been given to
the fact that the results of our statute search and evaluation will
greatly impact our public policy considerations.
In addition to the above, reliance on the results of an
economic analysis for which the assumptions and methodology used
are unknown is not good science or intellectual honesty. Such
reliance places the credibility of the Commission's findings in
jeopardy.
Finally, the fact that the pro-homosexual majority has
voted to prohibit expert testimony via telephone, when the experts
identified are traditionalists who would speak against extending
marriage benefits to homosexuals also places the credibility of our
recommendations in question.
The importance of this matter to the State of Hawaii
cannot be overemphasized. Therefore it is imperative that this
Commission conduct its business with the utmost intellectual
honesty and that our work be conducted with the openness required
by law.
Very truly yours,
Mani a. Guldon
MARIE A. "TONI" SHELDON
CC: Governor Benjamin Cayetano (via fax)
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi (via fax)
House Speaker Joseph Souki (via fax)
Commissioners (via hand delivery)
James Hochberg
Nanci Kriedman
Morgan Britt
Bob Stauffer
Ku'umeaaloha Gomes
The importance of
216
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau, 1177 Alakes SL, 6th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 587-0666; Facsimile: (808) 587-0681
Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson
Morgan Brin
L Ku'umeaaloha Gomes
Lloyd James Hochberg. Jr.
Nancl Kreidman
Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon
Roben H. Stauffer
October 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Commission Members
FROM:
Thomas P. Gill
Chairperson
Jone pure
SUBJECT:
October 25 Meeting
As indicated in the Agenda for the coming meeting our major task, after settling
the minutes of the last meeting and listening to the invited guests on the third topic set forth
in Act 5, will be to arrive at a general understanding of the Commission's position on the first
two topics: (1) the major legal and economic benefits involved and (2) the policy reasons to
extend or not to extend such benefits in whole or in part.
Each of you should feel free to clearly state your respective positions on each
of these topics verbally and/or in writing. We should try to keep the discussion orderly and
constructive. If we are successful we should identify the basic positions-majority and
minority--on these topics.
Since the recurring question of the meaning of "major" benefits will probably be
raised again I would like to make a suggestion to Mr. Hochberg. His definition of "major"
which has been proposed and voted down at least twice, may suffer from some ambiguity. in
order to allow the other members of the Commission to see how it would apply to the various
benefits which have been discussed so far I would strongly suggest that he select from the
various benefits mentioned by the Supreme Court, the list prepared by the Legislative
Reference Bureau, and/or by various speakers including Dr. La Croix, specific examples and
apply his definition of "major" to them. This could provide guidance to the Commission in
sorting out this portion of the report.
As indicated at the last meeting there may still be additional speakers who have
something to contribute to the first two topics considered by the Commission. We still have
some invitations outstanding to which we have not received a response. However, there were
two specifically mentioned by Mr. Hochberg which we ask him to pursue: (1) Mr. Makuakane,
from his law firm, who is skilled in the tax implications of some of the benefits, and (2)
someone from the private sector-perhaps a trust company-who is familiar with the impact the
extension of certain benefits might have on private retirement, pension, medical or similar
plans. Our testimony to date has dealt with public benefit plans.
Let's continue our practice of submitting suggested changes to the minutes or
other items before the meeting so that we can all consider them before it is time to vote.
Thanks for your help.
217
JAMES HOCHBERG
1188 Bishop Street, Suite 1610
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 536-1777; FAX 528-3631
October 25, 1995
Tom Gill, Chairman
Commissioners
Commission on Sexual Orientation
And the Law
Re: Mr. Gill's October 18, 1995 letter
Dear Commissioners:
In response to Mr. Gill's October 18, 1995 letter, this
explores how I would interpret the definition of "major legal and
economic benefit" as proposed by me. Each commissioner's
interpretation might be little different, but at least we would
all be using the same definition. Clearly, interpretation of the
statutes using different definition is chaos.
"major legal and economic benefit" shall mean:
"a resultant significant improvement in condition or
resultant significant advantage, after consideration of
concomitant burdens, which a married couple enjoys as a
result of holding the status "spouse" or "family" that
would not be either offered to a same-sex couple nor
available to a same-sex couple by another avenue or
means."
Contains the following four questions in analyzing a given
statute:
1.
does the statute in question create a significant
improvement in condition or advantage for a married couple
as a result of holding the status "spouse" or "family"?
2.
is there any burden associated with that significant
improvement in condition or advantage?
219
Commission on Sexual Orientation
and the Law
October 25, 1995
Page 2
3.
after considering the burden associated with the improvement
in condition or advantage, is the remaining improvement in
condition or advantage still significant?
4.
is that remaining significant improvement in condition or
advantage not offered to a same-sex couple nor available to
a same-sex couple by another avenue or means?
EXAMPLES:
is.
HRS 183D-22: Resident license fee applies to spouse of
active duty Military stationed in Hawaii.
1.
does the statute in question create a significant
improvement in condition or advantage for a married
couple as a result of holding the status "spouse" or
"family"?
Perhaps but not likely.
2.
is there any burden associated with that significant
improvement in condition or advantage?
Yes, must be spouse of a military person. Quite
burdensome if homosexual.
3.
after considering the burden associated with the
improvement in condition or advantage, is the remaining
improvement in condition or advantage still
significant?
NO. Stop analysis. Go to next statute.
B.
HRS 201E-62: Requires the HFDC to consider the size of
the family and the family income in
determining the qualifications of an
"eligible borrower". The family income
cannot exceed the requirements of Section
143 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code.
1.
does the statute in question create a significant
improvement in condition or advantage for a married
couple as a result of holding the status "spouse" or
"family"?
Maybe, if the family qualifies for the special loans.
220
ommission on Sexual Orientation
and the Law
stober 25, 1995
age 3
2.
is there any burden associated with that significant
improvement in condition or advantage?
Yes. If both spouses work it is likely that their
combined income will disqualify them for the benefit.
3.
after considering the burden associated with the
improvement in condition or advantage, is the remaining
improvement in condition or advantage still
significant?
No. Especially if they no longer qualify for the
benefit.
4. is that remaining significant improvement in condition
or advantage not offered to a same-sex couple nor
available to a same-sex couple by another avenue or
means?
No. According to HFDC employees, "family" is defined
to include household members. Therefore, homosexuals
receive this benefit presently, and would not benefit
in this statute from creation of domestic partnership
to confer the benefit.
I trust that this letter will assist you all in recognizing the
necessity of a single definition of "major legal and economic
benefit" for our use in analyzing the 15 page list of statutes.
The proposed definition, soundly based upon the charge given us
by the Legislature, fairly addresses the issues in determining a
major legal or economic benefit. As the above examples show,
this definition is not biased in favor of a particular political
view point. I urge you to adopt this definition and use it in
addressing the very serious matters with which we have been
charged. If you have any questions, please feel free to address
them to me. I remain,
:JH
221
MARIE A. SHELDON
1200 Paushi Tower
1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawali 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-2466
Fax: (808) 524-2556
October 27, 1995
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Via Fax
Chairman, Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau
State Capitol, Room 446
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Re: Governor's Commission on Sexual Orientation
and the Law
Dear Mr. Gill:
Our Thursday, October 26, 1995 meeting left me with several grave concerns.
This letter is an attempt to resolve some of those concerns.
Specifically, I have the following questions and comments:
1.
Why have you refused to permit the Commission to discuss and arrive
at a specific working definition of "major legal and economic benefit".
I am concerned that Commissioner Robert Stauffer's terminology which
purports to replace the Legislature's statutory language of "major" legal and economic benefits
with the Hawaii Supreme Court's operative term "salient" has been adopted, ostensibly for
definition purposes. See, Commissioner Stauffer's October 6, 1995 First Memo at 4. This 19
questionable because this Commission is not empowered with the authority to change the
language adopted by the Legislature. Further, it is unheard of to divine legislative intent in the
change from "precise" to "major" based upon an appellate decision written two years before
the legislation. Indeed, even though it had immediate access to the Hawaii Supreme Court's
opinion, the Legislature expressly did not use the Court's language.
2.
Why did you insist that we forge ahead without completing our review
and approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held Wednesday, October 11, 1995 (hereafter
"the October 11 Meeting")"
I am concerned about this because, as you will no doubt recall, you
insisted on a vote approving the written proposed amendments to the minutes submitted by
Commissioner Stauffer even though we only received those proposed amendments upon arrival
at the October 25, 1995 meeting, and did not have an opportunity to review or discuss them a:
223
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Re: Governor's Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
October 27, 1995
Page 2
all You stated that Commissioner James Hochberg's proposed amendments which were not
submitted in writing at that time would be discussed later. Pursuant to your request,
Commissioner Hochberg committed some of his proposed amendments to writing and submitted
them when we reconvened on Thursday, October 26, 1995. At that time you refused to consider
any of his written or oral proposed amendments to the October 11 Minutes. Instead. you
insisted that we forge ahead without approving the outstanding minutes.
I believe this is particularly disconcerting given that Commissioner
Hochberg's amendments concerned the testimony of expert economists that is crucial to our
accomplishing the statutorily-dictated goals of this Commission, including matters you insisted
come to a vote in the course of our October 26 session. If the minutes were drafted in 2 more
balanced fashion (if witnesses opposed to homosexual marriage could be properly identified and
their testimony represented in a manner equal to that of witnesses who support homosexual
marriage), the discussion wouldn't be necessary. In addition to the obvious equitable reasons,
it is extremely important that the minutes be presented in a balanced form because they
constitute the official records of this Commission's business.
3.
Why did you insist that we consider and vote on Commissioner
Stauffer's proposed drafts of sections of the Commission's report which deal with the very
matters contained in the unapproved October 11 Minutes?
This matter is of particular concern because you insisted that we forge
ahead despite the Commission's unanimous approval of Commissioner Hochberg's motion to
postpone voting on what major legal and economic benefits are granted in Hawaii as a result of
marriage until the Commissioners had the opportunity, consistent with HRS Chapter 92, to
publicly discuss each legal and economic benefit including statutes contained in the fifteen-page
List submitted by the Legislative Reference Bureau attorney, Pamela Martin. See proposed and
still unapproved Minutes of the October 11, 1995 Meeting.
4.
Why did you refuse to permit any substantive discussion and/or
amendment of the draft report sections submitted by Commissioner Stauffer which you
Insisted come to a vote at the October 26, 1995 session?
I am really concerned about this since the drafts we purportedly voted on
contain specific findings on matters we have never even touched upon let alone discussed.
5.
Why do you constantly and continually demean and ridicule
Commissioner Hochberg's efforts to make viable contributions to the work of this
Commission?
224
Thomas P. GUI, Esq.
Re: Governor's Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
October 27, 1995
Page 3
I am concerned, completely surprised, and frankly, offended by what 1
perceive to be outrageous conduct on your part toward Commissioner Hochberg. Specifically,
every time Commissioner Hochberg asks a question, makes 1 mocion, or attempts to engage in
substantive discussion, you chastise him and accuse him of purposeful delay or frivolity.
Moreover, at the October 26 session, you vehemently tried to insist that Commissioner Hochberg
recite B lengthy statement by Commissioner Kriedman which he was trying to incorporate into
a motion or forego bringing the motion. This seems particularly strange to me because you
permitted other Commissioners to incorporate lengthy statements by reference to the audio tape.
Yet, you chastised and demeaned Commissioner Hochberg when he tried to avail himself of the
same courtesy. Even more perplexing was your comment at the close of the session inquiring
as to whether Commissioner Hochberg would "gas everybody next week to stop the
proceedings". What in the world did you mean by that?
6.
Finally, is it your intent that this Commission timely draft and submit
a report and recommendation to the Hawaii State Legislature based on a somewhat revised
form of the drafts submitted by Commissioner Stauffer and the soon to be voted upon draft
submitted by Commissioner Britt even if it means doing so without benefit of any
substantive investigation and discussion?
I am extremely concerned about this because it appears that the Commission's
majority has already determined the tenor of this Commission's recommendations to our
Legislature, and it intends to proceed in that tenor without any substantive discussion of the
issues before it. Such a report would mislead the Legislature.
Frankly, I take my appointment to this Commission very seriously, and I have
looked forward to making a viable contribution to an intellectually honest and unbiased effort
to consider the interests of the entire Hawaii community in performing my tasks as a
Commissioner. Unfortunately, I find that the Commission is staffed with a clear five to two
majority of individuals who favor extending marriage rights to homosexuals. This imbalance
is not consistent with the often adamantly voiced interests of a clear majority of Hawaii's
citizens. Thus, I fear that the public interest is being sacrificed in order to satisfy a personal
agenda predicated on the behavioral desires of what amounts to a "tiny fraction" of the
population. One cannot help but notice that the "tiny fraction" happens to be represented by a
majority of this Commission's membership.
225
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Re: Governor's Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
October 27, 1995
Page 4
I look forward to receiving your response to my inquiries.
Very truly yours,
Mani A. Shuldon
MARIE A. "TONI" SHELDON
Commissioner
cc: Governor Benjamin Cayetano
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi
House Speaker Joseph Souki
Commissioners:
Jim Hochberg 528-3631
Nanci Kriedman 531-7228
Morgan Britt 599-1965
Bob Stauffer 237-8042
Ku'umeaahola Gomes 956-9880
226
COMMISSION ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW
Legislative Reference Bureau
State Capitol, Room 446
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 587-0666
Facsimile: (808) 587-0681
Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson
Morgan Britt
L Kuumeaaloha Gomes
Lloud James Hochberg, Jr.
Nanci Kreidman
Marie A Toni Sheldon
Robert H. Stauffer
MEMORANDUM
October 30, 1995
TO:
FROM:
Thomas P. Gill
Chairperson
Commission Members v.5.9.
RE:
Setting Aside Time for Future Meetings
When we recessed last Thursday, October 26, the Commission was still attempting
to finish its agenda for the October 25 meeting which involved considering motions on the first
two items in Act 5--identifying benefits and policy reasons to extend or not to extend those
benefits to same-sex couples.
1008
E
We had considered Dr. Stauffer's list of benefits and agreed to adopt substantial
benefits Nos. 1 through 4. We then recessed until 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 1,
Room 329, State Capitol Building Our agenda for the meeting on the 1st will start where we
left off on the preceding Thursday. We will first consider the remaining suggested substanial
benefits, Nos. 5 through 14, and the subsequent list of "general benefits" as listed in
Memorandum No. 13. Following consideration of Dr. Stauffer's list we will move on to
Mr. Britt's list of "policy reasons".
If Commission members have additional "benefit" or "policy reasons" they wish
considered they should submit them in writing prior to or at the November 1 meeting.
It seems obvious from our experience at recent meetings that we will not have time
to complete the agenda in the two hours allotted to the November 1 meeting. I am therefore
suggesting that we set aside the morning, or perhaps all day, on Thursday, November 2. to
complete this phase of our work.
You will note that the agenda for the next regular meeting on Wednesday,
November 8, includes voting on item (3) of Act 5. This involves recommending appropriate
action to be taken by the Legislature. At this meeting we will also be discussing the contents
of the draft report.
Given this schedule and work load please examine your schedule and see if you
can set aside time on Thursday, November 2 and 9. If this is not possible for some of you we
can consider other days or, possibly, proceeding with less than the entire membership.
Thanks for helping. Suggestions are always welcome!
227
Commission on Serual Orientation and the Law
Legislative Reference Bureau
State Capitol, Room 446
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 587-0666
Facsimile: (808) 587-0681
Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson
Morgan Britt
L Kuumeaaloha Gomes
Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr.
Nanci Kreidman
Marie A "Toni" Sheldon
Robert H. Stauffer
October 31, 1995
Marie A. Sheldon, Esq.
1200 Pauahi Tower
1001 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Re: Your Letter of October 27, 1995
Dear Ms. Sheldon:
Let me respond very briefly to your letter. There are some inaccuracies in it which you
may want to correct.
1. We have not "refused to permit" the Commission to discuss and arrive at a
definition of "major" benefits. Mr. Hochberg's proposed definition was considered and voted
down twice by the Commission. The legislature did not define "major". Mr. Hochberg's
definition seemed to some to be a bit convoluted and would impose on the Commission the
duty of not only identifying such benefits, but then proving that they met Mr. Hochberg's
definition. You might remember I suggested to Mr. Hochberg that he take some of the
benefits suggested by the Supreme Court and others and apply his definition to them. He did
so and the examples he used turned out to not be "benefits" under his definition. If the
purpose of the Commission was to determine that there would be no "benefits" conferred by
marital status or its equivalents on same-sex couples, and therefore the Legislature should do
nothing, the definition would be quite helpful. However, most would agree that the
Commission's function is somewhat broader than that.
2. You might recall that the October 11 minutes were considered and approved with
some minor amendments by a majority of the Commission. Mr. Hochberg apparently had not
had time to prepare and submit his proposed amendments. Both you and he were allowed to
reserve your approval or disapproval until such amendments were submitted. With that
understanding, final approval of the minutes was deferred until the rest of the agenda was
completed. Do you now disagree with that action?
3. Commissioner Stauffer's list of benefits, Including some noted by the Supreme
Court and some included as possible benefits in the LRB report, was next on the agenda. We
took each item, one at a time, and after four or five hours of rather intense argument or
discussion, extending over the rest of the meeting on October 26 and the recessed meeting
on the 27th, we were able to cover only about a third of them. Both you and Mr. Hochberg
participated in this discussion, at considerable length. Are you now suggesting that we go
back and discuss the entire listing of possibly relevant statutes mentioned in the LRB report
before proceeding with specifically suggested benefits? Of course you are free to suggest
your own list of benefits, if you want to do so, and the Commission can discuss them too, with
the same intensity as you have discussed Dr. Stauffer's list.
229
Ms. Marie A. Sheldon
-2-
October 31, 1995
4. There was no refusal to permit substantive discussion and/or amendment to
Dr. Stauffer's material. It was made clear that the material was not considered to be in final
form but subject to editing and modification by staff; further, when a draft report was given to
the Commission, hopefully on November 8, it would be subject to further consideration and
amendment. If you say there was no "substantive discussion" on the points considered, what
was going on during the four to five hours we spent on these topics in the last two meetings?
Perhaps you would also want to mention the numerous motions you and Mr. Hochberg
presented during this discussion, and the fact that most of them were voted down four to two
by the Commission. Is that your basic complaint?
5. Your reference to demeaning or ridiculing Mr. Hochberg's efforts is unfortunate. I
will continue to attempt to extend to Mr. Hochberg the same level of courtesy and tolerance
he extends to the Chair and to other Commission members with whom he disagrees.
However, may I point out the obvious: We were given a very limited time to produce a report
and little over a month remains. In the last month we have heard and/or received testimony
from an extensive list of witnesses, including those suggested or produced by you and
Mr. Hochberg. The time has come to move ahead with the material to be included in the
report. We have little time to spend picking over footnotes and arguing at length over minute
or procedural matters which would have the necessary result-even if unintended-of delaying
or preventing the production of the report. Please bear that in mind.
6. It is our intention to consider the proposal made and submitted in writing to the
Commission by commissioners Stauffer and Britt, along with others which may be timely
submitted, and have the LRB produce a draft which can be further considered and refined by
the Commission. This was made clear at the last two meetings. It was also made clear
several times that you and Mr. Hochberg will have an opportunity to submit a minority report if
you do not agree with the majority. Please prepare to do so.
I hope this brief response to your letter of October 27 which I received via FAX from
the LRB on the 30th meets your legitimate concerns. Please note our concerns: constructive
discussion is certainly in order, but not dances intended to delay. We must complete our
work on time.
Sincerely yours,
Ram Thomas P. Gill PSIN
Chairperson
CC: Commission Members
230
JAMES HOCHBERG
1188 Bishop Street, Suite 1610
Honolutu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 536-1777; FAX 528-3631
October 31, 1995
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Chairman, Commission on Sexual
Transmitted via fax
Orientation and the Law
to: 587-0681
Legislative Reference Bureau
1177 Alakea Street, 6th Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Re:
Objections to proposed procedure for November 1,
1995 Commission meeting
Dear Mr. Gill:
You have made it abundantly clear that you will timely
produce a report from the Commission to the Legislature as
requested in Act 5 (1995) whether the report is valid. I agree
that it is very important that our Commission complete its work,
however, I disagree with putting a looming deadline ahead of
taking the time to perform the work we have been given to do. In
looking over your letter of October 30, 1995, you have left
behind several very important items which I request that you
place back on the agenda for the November 1, 1995 meeting.
Please take up these issues before moving on to force
adoption of new draft language. The integrity of the work
product of the commission depends on a drastic change in our
work.
:CH
CC: Governor Benjamin Cayetano
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi
House Speaker Joseph Souki
Commissioners:
Toni Sheldon 524-2556
Nanci Kriedman 531-7228
Morgan Britt 599-1965
Bob Stauffer 237-8042
Ku'umeaaloha Gomes 956-9880
231
JAMES HOCHBERG
1188 Bubcp Stree:, Sure 1610
Honolulu Hswaii 96813
(BOE) 536-1777: FAX 528-3631
November 15, 1995
Thomas F. Gill, Esq.
Chairman, Commission on Sexual
Transmitted via fax
Orientation and the Law
to: 587-0681
Legislative Reference Bureau
Room 413, State Capitol
Honelulu, Hawaii 96813
Re:
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Dear Mr. Gill:
In striving to complete the first draft of our minority
report, several questions have arisen related to the publication
schedule. As I understand the time-table, on November 17, 1995
we will receive the draft of the majority report (and they,
curs). Then we will meet November 22, 1995 to vote on the drafts
distributed November 17, 1995. The drafts will then be sent for
public review on November 22, 1995. Then December 6, 1995, we
will meet to give the public an opportunity to comment on the two
drafts, and a final report will be voted on that day. I am
uncertain of the schedule for making changes to the drafts. As I
trust you can understand, the minority is in a difficult position
writing its report without having a final version long before
December 6, 1995. If the final version on December 6, 1995 is
substantially different from the prior drafts that, of course
would necessitate a further revision to the minority report. I
understand the reason for that schedule in light of the ultimate
publication deadline, however, at what time does the minority
address the final version of the majority report? Do we truly
receive the final when it voted on December 6, 1995?
It appears to me therefore, that the draft we are
presenting November 17, 1995: will be & very rough draft, subject
== substantial revision depending on what the majority report
states November 17, 1995 and what it actually ends up containing
November 22, 1995. In order for the minority to present a true
final draft December 6, 2995, no further revisions to the
majority report should occur after the November 22, 1995 meeting.
All things being possible, I suppose the content of the majority
report on November 22, 1995 could eliminate the need for a
minority report if its content was acceptable to the current
minority.
A further difficulty with the content of the final
report is also complicated by the fact that the official record
of the commission proceedings after September 27, 1995, upon
which the report is supposed to be based, won't have been
233
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
November 15, 1995
Page 2
addressed until November 22, 1955. That, of course, is after the
final draft of the reports are due. As you and I discussed and
you agreed at the November 7, 1995 meeting, the status of the
minutes from the October 11, 1995 meeting is that the only
changes considered or adopted BO far are those contained on the
one page submitted by Mr. Stauffer, and the balance of the
minutes are not yet reviewed. That includes the changes I did
submit in writing and those I have not yet put down to writing.
In addition, the October 25, 1995 changes made from that one page
are also still subject to further change if requested by another
commissioner.
The importance of this can be seen in the fact that
the settlement of the record of our prior meetings at which
testimony of legal and economic experts was taken has not bee:-
completed. I understand that minutes of that meeting have been
made available to the public even though they have not been
completely reviewed or submitted to the commission for approval.
= have not received a copy of such minutes for review and or
approval, and I would appreciate a copy at your earliest
convenience. Remember, I have additional substantial changes to
request.
On another matter, due to the issue of public access to
the commission process, I believe it is appropriate that any and
all input received by the commission be included as part of the
majority report. This confirms that I asked Pam Martin on
Tuesday, November 14, 1935, to collect all correspondence and
telephone records of contact from the public (including Dahu
people) and to commence keeping a log of all telephone calls to
the commission. I would appreciate receiving a copy of this
information at the November 22, 1995 meeting and any additional
information at the December 6, 1995 meeting.
Sincerely,
:JH
CC:
Commissioners:
Toni Sheldon 526-2556
Nanci Kriedman 531-7228
Morgan Britt 595-1965
Bob Stauffer 237-8042
Ku'umaaaloha Gomes 956-9880
234
JAMES HOCHBERG
1188 Bishop Street, Suite 1610
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 536-1777; FAX 528-3631
November 30, 1995
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
Chairman, Commission on Sexual
Transmitted via fax
Crientation and the Law
to: 587-0681
Legislative Reference Bureau
Room 413, State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Re:
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Dear Mr. Gill:
From a telephone conversation I had today with Pam
Martin, Esq., I understand that the majority of the commission
have decided the following:
1.
They will add appendices to the report to "balance" the
information appended by the minority, but
2.
The minority will not be permitted to add information
to the minority report between now and December 5, 1995
as previously agreed.
This is particularly troubling in light of the following:
1.
From the outset of our proceedings the commission
allowed for the possibility of a minority and majority
report;
2.
During the commission proceedings, you made it
abundantly clear that the minority would not be
permitted to insert information into the draft
commission report (before it became a majority report)
but instead instructed me to plan to present material
in the minority report rather than in the commission
discussions;
3.
Your scheduling of meetings consumed 50 much time that
it was very difficult to craft a minority report within
the deadline you established especially since you would
not permit us to take advantage of the commission
meeting time to work on the issues;
4.
To meet your very arbitrary deadlines, Toni Sheldon and
I provided a draft minority report on time, even though
it was not at the level of completion we desired on or
about November 22, 1995, and consequently, as we
235
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
November 30, 1995
Page 2
explained to Pam and the commission as a whole, we
would be revising it;
5.
On November 22, 1995, the majority finally disclosed
the content of the long awaited Appendix containing the
list of statutes upon which the majority based its
recommendations;
6.
Since our minority report was also delivered the same
day, we have obviously not had an opportunity to
address that Appendix;
7.
In addition, unlike the majority report which was
furnished as if it was a final product, the minority
report required significant time simply to respond to
the majority report, which could net be completed
before the majority report was delivered (as I am sure
you understand in light of the majority response to the
minority report); and
8.
Finally, throughout the proceedings, you and the
majority made it clear that since the minority could
not address our perspectives in the meetings during
which the majority draft was reviewed, the majority
would not edit or in any other manner "touch" the
minority report.
As you can see, things have evolved over the course of
our time together. I would rather that they remained somewhat
fixed in order for both the majority and minority to be able to
appreciate the "rules of the road." At this point, for the
record, please be advised that, like the majority, the minority
18 amending its report for the December 7, 1995 meeting. Even if
the majority decides not to add information to its report, the
minority will do 50 because it expects to provide the legislature
and Judge Chang with a full report. We simply have not yet
completed it.
236
Thomas P. Gill, Esq.
November 30, 1995
Page 3
Please inform me at your earliest convenience if I have
misunderstood the intentions of your majority commissioners.
Sincerely,
Jim JAMES HOCHBERG Hockberg
:JH
CC: Commissioners:
Toni Sheldon 524-2556
Nanci Kriedman 531-7228
Morgan Britt 599-1965
Bob Stauffer 237-8042
Ku'umeaaloha Gomes 956-9880
Governor Benjamin Cayetano
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi
House Speaker Joseph Souki
237
Chair Tom Gill and Commissioners
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
c/o Legislative References Bureau
Hawaii State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
December 3, 1995
Dear Chair Gill,
Without intentionally dignifying Mr. Hochberg's and Ms. Sheldon's Minority
chapter in our report with a response, I feel I have a compelling personal interest in
correcting their gross misrepresentation of events as they occurred at our October 25
and November 8 meetings. Their distortions of testimony and the Commission's
response to those testifying are more than overblown hyperbole. It could be
interpreted as slander. I am not willing to have this go into the public record
unchallenged.
It is with considerable amusement that I read the Minority's account of Diane
Sutton's testimony before the Commission and her recent letter to the Star Bulletin
(11/15). I would like to point out now as I did at the time of her testimony that the
Minority and Ms. Sutton are again "factually inaccurate"1 in their allegations that I
or anyone called her a "liar." Attached is a memo from Mr. Tom Aitken of Pahoa
School documenting just how off-base her knowledge of Project 10 is and how she
has misrepresented herself as a SCBM representative.2
I do not really have to defend myself: what was said is on audio tape, video
tape and in the official minutes of the meeting for that day. Mr. Hochberg was there
and witnessed her entire testimony. For him to report events other than as they
occurred in the Minority chapter of the Commission's report is disingenuous of him
at best. Quoting Ms. Sutton's letter in the Minority chapter as if it were true when
he knows otherwise is more than disingenuous. The implications of this kind of
misrepresentation of the facts exemplify the complete lack of professionalism and
integrity of the Minority opinion.
In spite of the glaring inaccuracies in Ms. Sutton's testimony and the fact that
her testimony had nothing to do with the issue before the Commission, Ms. Sutton
was allowed to consume 15-20 minutes of the Commission's time with her
histrionics. This was out of your good graces, Mr. Gill, in the interest of being "fair"
to those on all sides of the issue.
The same can be said of Ms. Loree Johnson whose paranoid scatological
fantasies and quantum leaps in "logic" defy the imagination. The fact that she was
allowed to testify TWICE before the Commission on issues that were not on the
agenda for their respective days is a testimony of how far the Commission was
1 See Minutes of 11/8/95
2 Letter amended 12/6/95 to include Mr. Aitken's memo per his request.
239
willing to go to accommodate all points of view.
If Ms. Sutton or Ms. Johnson consider themselves "harassed" when politely
calling attention to known discrepancies between the content of their testimony and
the facts, or being asked to get to the point after rambling at length on unrelated
issues to Commission, they are stretching the definition of the word. Perhaps they
would regard any public scrutiny of their testimony as "harassment." For such
people as Ms. Sutton and Ms. Johnson to be allowed to continue unchallenged in
their self-appointed role as spokespersons for their communities with no other
credentials than their self-righteous indignation is (to use the words of Ms. Johnson)
"repugnant, self-indulgent, exploitive, addictive and dangerous."3
I also take exception to Mr. Hochberg's misrepresentation of me on page 85 of
the Report. There was no discussion of school policy or curriculum before the
Commission. How he can presuppose my stand on this would indicate that he has
greater mental powers than we know him to possess. It is safe to say that I would
agree with Mr. Aitken's view that put-downs based on sexuality should not be
tolerated any more than racial slurs or violence towards any group in our public
schools. Children (and Ms. Sutton) should be taught this. Mr. Hochberg still seems
to consider gay and lesbian youth in our schools as fair targets for abuse.
I don't have to call Ms. Sutton, Ms. Johnson or Mr. Hochberg a "liar." A liar,
according to Webster's, is one who "makes untrue statements with the intent to
deceive" or "create(s) a false or misleading impression." I'm sure they wouldn't
stoop to that. However, a person who continues to assert that the sky is green, for
example, does not make it so by persisting in her allegations. In fact, in the face of
the patently obvious (that the sky is not green), one is led to much more basic
conclusions about the person making such allegations. I don't have to state the
obvious.
Sincerely,
Mongor Bailt
Morgan Britt, Commissioner
CC:
Governor Benjamin Cayetano
Commissioners:
Senate President Norman
Jim Hochberg
Mizuguchi
Nanci Kreidman
House Speaker Joseph Souki
Bob Stauffer
Ku'umealoha Gomes
Marie A. "Toni" Sheldon
3 See Minutes of 10/11/95 and written testimony of Loree Johnson dated 10/10/95
240
Appendix I
SELECTED TESTIMONIES
Page
1.
Selected Testimonies Supporting the Majority View
A. Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of
Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of Economics University of Hawaii
and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18
243
B. Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of
Sumner La Croix and James Mak, Professors of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-28, 29
253
C. Memo to Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson, Dated November 28, 1995,
from Sumner La Croix, Professor Department of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Regarding Draft Report of the Commission
255
D. Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony
of Robert J. Bidwell, M.D., Pages T-3 through T-7
257
E. Letter from Thomas F. Coleman to Commission Regarding
Comments to November 22, 1995 Draft Report, Dated
November 30, 1995
263
F. Letter from Andrew Koppelman letter to Commission Regarding
Comments to November 22, 1995 Draft Report, Dated
December 4, 1995
265
2.
Selected Testimonies Supporting the Minority View
A. Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony
of Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-30 through T-34
269
B. Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali,
Retired Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii,
Pages T-51 through T-56.
275
C. Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony
of Diane Sutton, Pages T-86 and T-87
281
D. Letter to Commission from Diane Sutton, Dated
November 9, 1995
283
241
A Brief Analysis of Important Economic Benefits Accruing from Same-Sex Marriage
Revised Testimony Before Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, State of Hawaii
Summer J. La Croix, Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii
Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, University of Maryland
(As amended)
October 5, 1995
1. Intangible Economic Benefits
It is difficult to place 1 money value on some rights adhering to marriage, such as the right to visit
a spouse in the hospital. Such rights are, however, often highly valued by each partner in the
marriage. Some (but not all) intangible benefits also have the desirable feature that they do not
impose costs on other people. One example is the right to obtain a spouse's vital statistics (HRS
338-18). Another is the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) policy favoring the
immigration of family members (including spouses) who are citizens of foreign countries.
2. Benefits from Marriage that Affect 0 Small Number of Couples
A relatively large class of legal benefits involves rights that are of limited economic value to the
typical married couple, as the rights are used infrequently. Three examples follow. Conveyance
taxes are not levied on transfers of property between a husband and wife (HRS 247-3(4) & (12)),
but such conveyances are infrequent. A University of Hawaii employee's spouse is exempted from
the nonresident tuition differential when the spouse is not a Hawaii resident (HRS 304-4(b)), but
there are likely to be only a few such instances each year. Election law (HRS 11-204) allows an
immediate family member to contribute up to $50,000 to an immediate family member who is a
candidate for public office, but relatively few same-sex couples would exercise this benefit. Of
course, while the expected value of each benefit is small, the sum of numerous small benefits can
be quantitatively significant.
3. Сол of Creating a Relationship (Without Access to the Institution of Marriage)
In one relatively simple and inexpensive step, marriage creates a relationship between two adults
that grants several rights that can otherwise be simulated with private agreements between two
unmarried partners. The laws of Hawaii include the following such benefits:
Access to Family Court for the award of child custody and support payment proceedings.
The right to enter in Premarital Agreements.
The Probate code provides protection rights, notice rights, and other inheritance rights to
spouse and other related parties.
Defined principles for the control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
in divorce.
The right to spousal support and right to file a nonsupport action.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
243
2
The award of child custody and support payments in divorce proceedings.
Post-divorce rights relating to support and property division.
Full parenting rights to children born or adopted within the marriage.
The right to claim a deceased spouse's body.
The right to change name.
Same gender couples can sometimes construct private agreements that explicitly address many of
the issues raised above, and legal advisors often recommend that couples write up such
agreements. These documents often require the costly services of a lawyer. The documents may
have to be drawn up more than once, as they will have to be changed as conditions change. In
some situations, there is uncertainty about whether these contracts will be honored, particularly
when they involve children. There are many cases of even wills being contested and sometimes
overturned. Marriage allows a couple to save the money and time costs associated with drawing
up these documents. These economic benefits can be significant, amounting to several thousand
dollars.
4. Benefits from Marriage with 0 Significant Expected Value
A Retirement
There are two major benefits specified in public employee retirement plans and in some private
plans that are affected by a retiree's marital status: (1) health insurance and (2) pensions. Both
are extended to surviving spouses in some circumstances.
1. Retirement Health Insurance Benefits
A major retirement benefit specified in the Employee Retirement System (ERS) of the
State of Hawaii and in many private pension plans is full payment of health, dental, and
vision insurance premiums by the employer after retirement. Coverage can be extended to
a spouse. ERS offers the employee and his/her spouse the same menu of health insurance
plans offered to public employees with the same schedule of copayments and coinsurance
at no charge. The spouse receives this benefit if he/she is neither covered at work nor by
another retirement plan. If the alternative is an individual policy with Kaiser at a monthly
cost of $122, then the benefits to the couple amount to $1,464.00.
When a vested retiree (with at least ten years of service) becomes eligible for Medicare,
the Hawaii public employees retirement plan pays the premium for Part B of the Medicare
Program for both the retiree and the spouse (if they choose to enroll). This program
confers benefits on spouses who do not have the same benefit coverage in their own
retirement plan. The current monthly price for the Medicare Pan B premium is $46.10,
amounting to $553.20 annually.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
244
3
2. Retirement Pension Benefits
The state retirement system (in particular, the noncontributory plan) forces an employee to
choose from a menu of payment plans when the employee decides to retire. The payment
plans include (1) receiving a lump-sum payment; (2) receiving monthly payment which
stop at the death of the retiree; (3) receiving monthly payments which stop at the death of
both the retiree and the spouse. Assuming that the last two payment plans are designed to
have the same present value for a typical retiree, then the additional cost to the state of
incorporating same-sex couples into its benefits plan will be relatively small. There will,
however, be some additional cost, as a retiree in a same-sex marriage with a short
expected lifespan and a healthy spouse will now have the option of picking the stream of
payments ending with the death of the spouse. This payment package is likely to be
relatively unattractive, as it is based on a relatively long survival of the retiree's spouse.
However, in a same sex marriage two spouses of the same age have the same statistical
life expectancy. When the retiree does choose this package, it will, on average, generate
higher costs to the state system.
of course, many retirees in a same-sex marriage will pick the payment plan which ends at
the death of the retiree, as they will rationally infer, using information from life tables and
their own information concerning their spouse's health, that the spouse will die first or that
the spouse will not live long enough to justify the lower stream of pension benefits. Thus,
in more than one-half of the plans, there will be no additional cost to the state.
In the Hawaii ERS noncontributory plan, an unmarried retiree has the right to name a
second beneficiary and pick the payment package which ends at the death of the second
beneficiary and the retiree. However, an unmarried partner has no rights to such a stream,
while a married partner has the right to a pension payment package which does not end
until he/she dies.
B. Health Insurance
The Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act mandates that private employers provide & minimum
package of health insurance benefits to employees who work more than 20 hours per week.
While the Act does not require that health insurance be provided to dependents, almost all private
firms as well as the State of Hawaii also cover spouses. Since most spouses in Hawaii will be
working, the spouse will already have health insurance. Most insurance plans then only pay a
supplemental benefit, i.e., they only cover what the spouse's plan does not cover. If the spouse is
not working then the spouse can be enrolled in, for example, the HGEA's "Kaiser Gold"
package, containing health, drug, vision, and dental insurance, for an additional $17.70 per month.
If the alternative is an individual health care policy from Kaiser, then the annual benefit from
including the spouse in the employee's health care plan is $1,251.48.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
245
4
C. The Impact of Marriage on Taxes
Federal and State Income Taxes: Marriage Taxes and Bonuses from the Tax Tables
The impact on income tax payments is complex, partly because both state and federal tax laws are
involved, and because the effect of marriage depends on the number of earners in a household and
the level of each spouse's earnings. This section presents two general scenarios: one in which
marriage reduces a couple's income taxes and a second in which marriage increases a couple's
income taxes.
The tax scenarios are based on the Arnie Aloha family described by the Tax Foundation of Hawaii
(April 1994 brochure). The husband earns $38,357 and the wife earns $29,232, and they have
two young children. After adding other sources of income, their total family gross income is
$84,760. After subtracting their itemized deductions of $15,476, the couple's taxable income is
$59,484 and their tax bill is $11,713. If they had no children, their taxable income would have
been $64,384, and they would have paid $13,085 in taxes.
Suppose that the same couple is unmarried with the same individual employment earnings.
Suppose also (for simplicity) that they prorate the deductions and each claim half of the other
income. If the higher earner claims the two children as dependents and files as head of the
household, then the total federal taxes paid the two separately are $9,724, or $1,989 less than if
they were married. If the same couple had DO children and is unmarried, then their federal
income taxes would be $12,104, or $981 less than if they were married. The effect in this
scenario is clearly to increase the couple's taxes when if they are married. This result is the well
known "marriage penalty."
Consider now a second scenario with the same Arnie Aloha family. In this second scenario, the
family's income is the same as in the first scenario, but all of the family's income is earned by just
one of the two adults. In this scenario, if the couple is married and has two young children, then
the couple's tax bill is $12,688. If they had no children, they would have paid $13,085 in taxes.
Suppose that the same couple is unmarried. Then when two children are claimed as dependents,
the total tax bill would be $12,688 or $975 more than if they were married. If the same unmarried
couple has no children, then the tax bill would be $15,346 or $2,261 more than if they were
married. The effect in this scenario is clearly to decrease the couple's taxes when they are
married This result is the less well known "marriage bonus." All four results are summarized in
Table 1 (attached).
These examples reproduce the familiar result that the tax schedules favor traditional married
couples with one primary earner and penalize married couples with similar income levels. See
Rosen, 1987 and Pechman and Engelhardt, 1990 for a more technical discussion in the economics
literature. In general, marriage bonuses are created when only one partner is working or when the
two partners have very unequal earnings. Same gender couples could have very unequal earnings
when one partner is staying home with children, or is in school, or in a full-time training program,
or is already retired.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
246
5
Hawaii state income taxes produce similar types of marriage bonuses and penalties that are
smaller in size than the federal bonuses and penalties (see attached table). The presence of tax
and bonus effects in the Hawaii tax tables is because they have the same basic structure as federal
income tax tables.
Additional Tax Bonuses from Marriage in the Federal Tax System
Spouses (who are not claimed as dependents on other returns) are automatically given an
exemption, while unmarried partners must meet a much more rigorous test of economic
dependency which many could not meet.
If an unmarried individual's employer offers domestic partner benefits, such as health care
benefits. the amount paid by the employer for the partner's benefits is considered part of the
employee's taxable income unless the partner can be claimed as a dependent. The amount paid by
employers for a spouse's benefit is, however, not taxable income.
If a couple's relationship ends, there are tax advantages if the couple is married. Alimony
payments are deductible, and divorce-related property settlements (transfers from one spouse to
the other) are exempt from capital gains tax (until the spouse receiving the property sells it).
When an unmarried couple's relationship ends, they cannot claim these tax benefits.
Tax Bonuses Stemming from the Marital Deduction with Federal Estate and Gift Taxes
A married person receiving an estate (or total gifts) beyond $600,000 from his/her spouse does
not owe estate or gift taxes due to the unlimited "marital deduction." Other heirs would have to
pay estate or gift taxes on the value of the estate or gifts beyond the $600,000 ceiling The effect
of the marital tax deduction is to defer payment of the transfer tax until the death of the spouse
(which is usually, but not always, reduces the present value of tax savings for the spouse). Also,
annual gifts beyond $10,000 to unrelated individuals are taxed; transfers to spouses are not taxed.
See.
D. Federal Social Security Benefits
Married couples receive significant advantages in the nation's social security programs,
particularly in the size of monthly benefits paid under Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program
(OASI), but also in the Disability Insurance Program All figures cited below are taken from the
1994 Green Book compiled by the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of
Representatives.
The benefits from marriage in the OASI Program have several sources. First, when a fully insured
worker retires, his or her spouse receives a benefit equal to 50% of the retired worker's benefit
(unless the spouse is entitled to 1 larger benefit based on his or her own work history). In 1993,
the average monthly benefit for wives and husbands of retired workers was 5347, or $4,164 more
annually than a same gender couple with one fully insured worker and an uninsured partner would
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
247
6
have received. Second, when the retired worker dies, the surviving spouse (from age 60 and up)
then receives the retired worker's full benefit. In 1993, the average widower in this program
received $630 per month, or $7,560 annually, while a surviving member of a same sex couple
would receive nothing Third, when an insured spouse dies, the surviving spouse is entitled to a
lump-sum death benefit of $255. Finally, when a currently insured (non-retired) worker dies, the
widow or widower is eligible for a monthly benefit if the couple had children who are under age
16 or disabled, and the legal children of the deceased also receive benefits. In 1993 the average
widow or widower in this category received $448 per month or $5,376 annually, and children
average $173 per month or $2,076 annually, while a surviving member of a same sex couple and
the survivor's legal children would receive nothing
The Disability Insurance system also favors married couples. If a disabled worker has a spouse
who is either aged 62 or older or is caring for a young or disabled child of the worker, the spouse
is eligible for a benefit that averaged $156 per month or $1,872 annually in 1993. In a same sex
couple, the partner of a disabled person would receive nothing.
More detailed studies of the social security system show that over time, the numerous benefits
awarded by the social security system to married couples generate significant benefits. Married
couples-even when both spouses work-have rates of return on their social security tax
payments that are two to three times higher than the rate of return earned by single individuals
with the same income. See Boskin, er al., 1987. Net marginal social security tax rates, which
adjust the social security payroll tax rates by the amount of future benefits, are much lower for
earners with dependent spouses than for single men and women See Feldstein and Samwick,
1992. Many earners with dependent spouses have negative social security tax rates, meaning that
an additional dollar of income provides more in future benefits than the worker pays in social
security taxes.
In sum, the OASI tax advantages for married couples generate significant economic benefits that
are worth thousands of dollars annually during retirement. In addition, the payments provided to
some spouses under the Disability Insurance system provides significant added financial security
when a spouse becomes disabled.
E Ton Actions
According to Hawaii state law (HRS 663-3, 663-18), in the case of a spouse's death caused by a
wrongful act by some third party, the surviving spouse may bring a civil lawsuit against the third
party. The spouse may attempt to recover damages, including loss of companionship,
consortium, and marital care, as well as the expenses of any illness and burial. Also, the spouse
can attempt to recover the loss to the estate and the loss of support to the spouse. Loss of
support can be as large as 40 percent of the decedent's lost earnings.
F. Death Benefits
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
248
7
If a Hawaii State public employee dies due to natural causes (with 10 years of credited service) or
due to a job-related accident, a monthly benefit is paid to the surviving spouse until remarriage.
Only & surviving spouse is eligible for the death benefit.
In some private firms, either a surviving spouse or a designated beneficiary can receive a death
benefit. However, a surviving spouse can roll a death benefit into an IRA, while an unrelated
person cannot. Thus, & spouse is able to defer federal taxes on the death benefit, while-an
unrelated person cannot.
G. Hawaiian Home Lands Lease
Upon the death of the lessee, a spouse can assume the lease on land in a Hawaiian Home Lands
development, while an unrelated occupant cannot. While the expectation in a same sex marriage is
that the two spouses will die at the same time, in many cases a spouse will significantly outlive the
lessee spouse. By remaining in the leased dwelling, the spouse could then save the rental on
housing of a similar quality. Using the 1990 rental price ($401) for housing in the lower quartile
of the rental housing distribution, the benefit would amount to $4,812 annually.
H. Workers' Compensation
Hawaii Workers' Compensation law allows death benefits to be paid to a dependent spouse or
other dependent family members (parent, son, daughter, grandchild, etc.). However, death
benefits are not paid to an unrelated partner in an unmarried couple. The benefits are significant,
as they are equal to 62% of a worker's weekly wage, with 1 minimum weekly payment of Sxx and
a maximum weekly payment of $dd. The stream of payments to the spouse does not end until the
spouse's death or remarriage.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
249
e
Table: Federal and State Income Tax Payments for Married and Unmarried Couples
Married, Filing Jointly
Unmarried
Gain or Loss
w/ Marriage
Dual Earner, w/ children
Federal
$11,713
9,724'
1,989
Hawaii
5,230
5,006
224
Total
16,943
14,730
2,213
Dual Earner, w/o children
Federal
13,085
12,104
981
Hawaii
5,438
5,613
-175
Total
18,523
17,717
806
Single Earner, w/ children
Federal
11,713
12,688'
-975
Hawaii
5,230
5,481
-251
Total
16,943
18,169
-1,226
Single Earner, w/o children
Federal
13,085
15,346
-2,261
Hawaii
5,438
6,074
-636
Total
18,523
21,420
-2,897
Notes: a: Higher earner files as head of household; lower earner files as single.
b: Single earner files as head of household and claims partner as dependent.
C: Single earner files as single and claims partner as dependent.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
250
9
Sources Cited in Text
Michael J. Boskin, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Douglas J. Puffert, and John B. Shoven, "Social
Security: A Financial Appraisal Across and Within Generations." National Tax Journal, Vol. XL,
No. 1, 1987.
Martin Feldstein and Andrew Samwick, "Social Security Rules and Marginal Tax Rates,"
National Tax Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 1, 1992.
Joseph A Pechman and Gary V. Engelhardt, "The Income Tax Treatment of the Family: An
International Perspective," National Tax Journal, vol. XLIII, No. 1, 1990.
Harvey S. Rosen, "The Marriage Tax is Down but Not Out," National Tax Journal, Vol. XL, No.
4, 1987.
William Rubenstein, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, The New Press, New York, 1993.
Tax Foundation of Hawaii, April 1994 brochure.
U.S. Dept, of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 1994, 1040 Forms and Instructions.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Overview of Entitlement
Programs: 1994 Green Book, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Excerpt from the Minutes of September 27, 1995, Testimony of Sumner J. La Croix, Professor of
Economics University of Hawaii and Lee Badgett, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland, Pages T-10 through T-18.
251
Testimony Before Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, State of Hawaii
Public Policy Issues: How Will Same-Sex Marriage Affect Hawaii's Tourism Industry?
Summer La Croix and James Mak, Professors of Economics, University of Hawaii
First, legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii is likely to induce a significant annual flow of tourists who
travel to Hawaii to enter into a same-sex marriage. Following (and modifying) the analysis in Jennifer Garuda
Brown's 1995 Southern California Low Review article, we assume that: (1) 3% of the U.S. population over the
age of 16 is gay (5.76 million people); (2) 15% of gay people have a current demand for marriage; (3) marriages
from this backlogged demand will take place in Hawaii over a five-year period; (4) a second state does not
legalize same-sex marriage over this five-year period; (5) the couples travel alone to Hawaii; (6) the number of
states declining to recognize same-sex marriages does not decrease; and (7) other tourists are not crowded out
of the market during the peak tourist seasons. Using these assumptions, we calculate that 172,500 additional
tourists will visit Hawaii annually to be married. We emphasize that this estimate is very rough, as the number
of additional tourists visiting Hawaii could be much lower or much higher as these assumptions vary.
Second, Hawaii encourages tourists to visit and participate in the Honolulu Marathon each year. The general
presumption is that the additional sports tourism generates additional income for Hawaii residents. Tourists' use
of public facilities also imposes depreciation costs, operating costs, and congestion costs on Hawaii's citizens
and on other tourists, thereby offsetting some of the income gains. Given the excess capacity in the state's hotel
industry and various supporting industries, AT conclude that as long as additional tourists visiting to run in the
Marathon generate net benefits for Hawaii, it is reasonable to assume that a new flow of tourists visiting Hawaii
to be married will also generate net benefits for Hawaii. In 1992 the average "Westbound" visitor (originating
in North America or Europe) stayed in Hawaii for 10.47 days and spent $117 per day. Total expenditures by the
new tourists would then amount to $211 million annually for five years. Since, on average, a dollar of visitor
expenditures translates into $0.60 of household income, the $211 million of expenditures will yield approximately
$127 million of income annually over five years for Hawaii's households.
Third, private groups have boycotted several states and cities to protest against local laws and policies. There
is, however, no evidence that cities with strong gay rights laws or strong civil rights laws, such as San Francisco,
New York, and Seattle, have suffered reduced tourism flows.
Fourth, another possibility is that the higher percentage of guy tourists visiting Hawaii would lower the value of
visiting Hawaii for some heterosexuals, who would then choose to visit other destinations. The extent to which
this phenomenon, known as "tipping," would occur in Hawaii is difficult to gauge. However, one could argue that
it is unlikely to persuade significant numbers of heterosexual tourists to choose other destinations. In 1992, there
were 6,874,000 visitors to Hawaii An additional 172,500 gay visitors would increase the annual flow of tourists
by 2.5% Suppose we assume that 5% of current visitors to Hawaii are gay, reflecting a possible higher
propensity for travel among the 3% of the U.S. population which is gay. Then the total number of guy tourists
would increase to approximately 7.5% of the new total. It seems unlikely that an increase in the proportion of
gay tourists from 5% to 7.5% of the total would be sufficient to significantly lower the value of tourism to the
other 92.5% of the visitors.
Heterosexual tourists are, however, likely to notice public weddings of same-sex couples, including those of
resident gay couples from Hawaii. The impact of such public visiblity on Hawaii's image as a resort destination
and on tourism revenues is uncertain. Tourism could decrease if some tourists are uncomfortable with public
same-sex weddings, or could increase if public same-sex weddings make Hawaii a more exotic, interesting tourist
destination.
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Sumner La Croix and James Mak,
Professors of Economics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-28, 29.
253
2
Data References for MakLa Croix Testimony on Effects on Tourism
1. Assumptions that (a) 3% of the U.S. population is gay and (b) 15% of gay people will have a demand for
marriage are taken from Jennifer Garuda Brown's 1995 Southern California Law Review article.
2. Data on Westbound visitor expenditures are from the State of Hawaii Data Book, 1993-94, P. 184. Data on
length of stay are from State of Hawaii Data Book, 1993-94, p. 180. The relationship between income and
expenditure is derived from State of Hawaii Data Book, 1993-94, p. 191.
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Sumner La Croix and James Mak,
Professors of Economics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-28, 29.
254
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Department of Economics
Room 542
Porteus Hall
2424 Maile Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Phone (808) 956-8496 FAX (808) 956-4347
November 28, 1995
To:
Thomas P. Gill
Chair, Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Fm:
Sumner La Croix
&
Professor, Department of Economics, University of Hawaii
Re:
Draft Report of the Commission (dated 11/22/95)
I am writing to you to correct the misrepresentation of my testimony in Chapter 5 (the
Minority Report) of the Draft Report. Let me address a few specific issues.
1. The Minority Report states (p. 69) that "Dr. La Croix could not estimate whether the
net effect on tourism dollars would be positive or negative." However, Professor James
Mak and I submitted written testimony to the Commission ("Public Policy Issues: How
Will Same Marriage Affect Hawaii's Tourism Industry?") in which we stated that the
additional tourists traveling to Hawaii to enter into a same-sex marriage would generate
"$127 million of income annually over five years for Hawaii's households." The Minority
Report distorts our views on this subject.
2. The Minority Report states (p. 65) that "[u]nless data show that most or all same-sex
couples have greatly unequal income, Dr. Ghali, Professor Roth, and Dr. La Croix agree
that there is no reason to assume a general tax benefit from marriage." My position is that
there is a tax benefits from marriage if some same-sex couples have unequal incomes.
3. The Minority Report uses Dr. Ghali's testimony to attempt to refute my analysis of
major benefits not extended to same-sex couples. However, Dr. Ghali's analysis is
generally directed toward another question: he analyzes whether the extension of such
benefits to same-sex couples would improve social welfare. These are two very different
questions, and I have not addressed the second question. In many cases (p. 63), Dr.
Ghali's criticism amounts only to a call for more research that would allow the major
benefits denied to same-sex couples to be quantified more precisely.
4. In sum, my analysis indicates that there are major economic benefits that are extended
to married opposite-sex couples that are not extended to same-sex couples. Moreover,
Professor Mak and I both expect that the impact on tourism would be positive.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution
Memorandum to Thomas P. Gill, Chairperson, dated November 28, 1995, from Sumner La Croix,
Professor, Department of Economics, University of Hawaii, regarding Draft Report of the
Commission.
255
Testimony
Presented to
State of Hawaii
Commission on Sexual Orientation
and the Law
Regarding the Impact of Having
Same-Sex as Compared to Opposite-Sex Parents
on the Development of Children
Robert J. Bidwell, MD
November 8, 1995
Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Robert J. Bidwell, M.D., Pages T-3
through T-7.
257
Pediatrics, like many other professional disciplines, was late in addressing the issues of
homosexuality, lesbian/gay parenting, and the impact of these on children, adolescents and
families. Fortunately, my profession is making up for lost time and has begun a careful
examination of these important subjects. A fairly extensive pediatric literature has developed
on homosexuality and adolescence. The literature on gay and lesbian parenting is more sparse.
In 1994, however, an excellent examination of the topic appeared in Pediatrics in Review (Gold,
et al, 1994), one of the most respected journals in pediatrics; my testimony will attempt to
summarize their review as well as provide information from more recent data appearing in
journals identified through "MedLine" and "PsychLit" searches.
In September 1994, the article "Children of Gay or Lesbian Parents" by M.A. Gold, et al,
appeared in Pediatrics in Review, an official publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics
(Gold, et al, 1994). Among other issues relevant to pediatrics, it provided estimates of the
prevalence of gay/lesbian parenting in the U.S. and a review of the literature on the development
of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. They estimated that there are from 1 to 5 million
lesbian mothers and 1 to 3 million gay fathers in the U.S., and that 6 to 14 million people have
one or more gay or lesbian parents.
In reviewing the literature on the development of children of gay and lesbian parents Gold, et
al, acknowledge the fact that the data is incomplete because many studies have had small
numbers of subjects, non-random subject selection, narrow racial or socioeconomic
representation and no long-term longitudinal follow-up. Nevertheless, they present the results
of two recent large-scale reviews of the literature related to this topic which are summarized
below. In 1992, C.J. Patterson reviewed 12 studies that overall looked at 300 children of gay
and lesbian parents, all compared, in their respective studies, to equal numbers of children of
heterosexual parents (Patterson, 1992). Taken as a whole, the reviewed studies provided the
following findings:
1.
There were no differences in the development of sexual orientation, gender
identity or sexual role behavior between children of gay/lesbian parents and those
of heterosexual parents.
2.
Adolescent sexual orientation was similar in children from homosexual and
heterosexual families (5-8% in both groups acknowledging homosexual attraction
or behavior).
3.
Both groups of children had equivalent rates of psychiatric disturbance and
behavioral or emotional problems.
4.
There were no statistically significant differences in personality characteristics,
locus of control, moral maturity, or intelligence.
5.
Children of lesbian mothers spent more time with their mothers' male friends and
had more contact with their fathers that did children of single heterosexual
mothers.
Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Robert J. Bidwell, M.D., Pages T-3
through T-7.
258
6.
Children growing up in gay and lesbian families were shown to be more tolerant
of diversity and more open to discussion of sexuality issues and interpersonal
relationships than children in heterosexual families.
7.
Children of gay/lesbian parents are less likely to be victims of parental sexual or
physical abuse than children of heterosexual parents.
Gold, et al, next looked at F.W. Bozett's review of the literature on gay fathers (Bozett, 1989).
This literature has more often focused on parenting style than on child development. Taken as
a whole these studies suggest that:
1.
There is no evidence that gay or heterosexual fathers differ in problem-solving,
providing recreation for children or in encouraging autonomy.
2.
Paternal attitudes did differ: Gay fathers were less traditional, more nurturing,
invested more in their paternal role and viewed their paternal role more positively
than heterosexual fathers.
Finally, Gold, et al, note that studies have shown that children brought up in two-adult homes,
regardless of the gender of the two adults, adjust better than those raised by single parents.
Gold, et al, summarized their review of the issue of children of gay or lesbian parents by
stating:
There are no data to suggest that children who have gay
or lesbian parents are different in any aspects of
psychological, social, and serual development from
children in heterosexual families. There has been fear
that children raised in gay or lesbian households will
grow up to be homosexual, develop improper sex-role
behavior or sexual conflicts, and may be sexually
abused. There has been concern that children raised by
gay or lesbian parents will be stigmatized and have
conflicts with their peer group, thus threatening their
psychological health, self-esteem, and social
relationship. These fears and concerns have not been
substantiated by research.
I will briefly summarize the research reports identified by "MedLine" and PsychLit" that have
appeared since 1993 which relate to the children of gay/lesbian parents. In 1993, O'Connell
published a study of 11 young adults (aged 16 to 23 years) whose mothers were lesbian
O'Connell, 1993). These offspring expressed a perceived need for some secrecy as teenagers
about maternal sexual orientation in order to preserve friendships and had unrealized fears of
male devaluation and homosexuality that abated over time. They exhibited "profound loyalty"
and protectiveness toward their mothers, openness to diversity and sensitivity to the effects of
prejudice.
A second study by Flaks, et al, compared the 3 to 9 year old children of 15 lesbian couples born
through donor insemination with 15 matched beterosexual-parent families (Flaks, et al, 1995).
There was no significant difference between the two groups of children in cognitive functioning
Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Robert J. Bidwell, M.D., Pages T-3
through T-7.
259
and behavioral adjustment. There was no difference in the parents' relationship quality and
parenting skills except that lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did
heterosexual couples.
Finally, a British study by Tasker and Golombok (Tasker and Golombok, 1995), attempted a
longitudinal study of teenagers and young adults from lesbian and heterosexual single-parent
homes. Those raised by lesbian mothers functioned well both as children and as adults. For
children of lesbian parents the teen years were more difficult, although "this did not appear to
be attributable to any difficulty in family relationships within the home, but to concerns about
presenting their family background to others."
In summary, while the data on gay/lesbian parenting is still incomplete there is much that is
known. In examining the breadth of the professional literature there is no evidence to date that
the physical, emotional, psychological or social health of the children of gay or lesbian parents
is compromised by the sexual orientation of their parents. While there is some data to suggest
that for some teenagers the adolescent years may be difficult as they attempt to avoid the stigma
of having parents who are "different", there is no data to suggest that deep or lasting harm
results. As one author suggests, "Pain does not mean damage". While no parent wants their
child to experience pain, in my work as a pediatrician, I have seen pain, which is a fact of life,
lead to increased maturity, strength, and sensitivity to the pain of others. This observation is
supported in the literature on the experience of children of gay/lesbian parents.
Gay and lesbian parenting is a fact of life as well. Our Hawaiian Islands are home to thousands
of gay and lesbian parents and their children. Marriage can only strengthen the relationship of
two people who have committed themselves to each other. Research shows that children from
two-parent families are at an advantage over children from single-parent homes, regardless of
the sexual orientation of the parents. Societal recognition will strengthen these families and over
time, reduce the stigma or embarrassment that may be felt by some children, especially as they
enter adolescence, because they have families that may be "different" from others. I urge you
to carefully review the articles that accompany my testimony, and hope that you come to this
fonclusion--that recognition of same-sex relationships will strengthen our community's gay and
esbian families and benefit their children.
Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Robert J. Bidwell, M.D., Pages T-3
through T-7.
260
REFERENCES
Bozen FW (1989)
Gay Fathers: A Review of the Literature.
J of Homosexuality 18: 137-162.
Flaks DK, Ficher I, Masterpasqua F, Joseph G (1993)
Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents and
Their Children. Special Issue: Sexual Orientation and Development.
Developmental Psychology 31:105-114.
Gold MA, Perrin EC, Futterman D, Friedman SB (1994)
Children of Gay or Lesbian Parents
Pediatrics in Review 15:354-358.
O'Connell A (1993)
Voices from the Heart: The Developmental Impact of a Mother's Lesbianism on Her Adolescent
Children. Special Issue: Lesbians and Lesbian Families: Multiple Reflections.
Smith College Studies in Social Work 63:281-299.
Patterson CJ (1994)
Lesbian and Gay Families
Current Directions in Psychological Science 3:62-64.
Tasker F, Golombok S (1995)
Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families
Amer J Orthopsychiat 65:203-215.
Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Robert J. Bidwell, M.D., Pages T-3
through T-7.
261
SPECTRUM INSTITUTE
A Non-Proft Corporation Promoting Respect For Human Diversity
November 30, 1995
Thomas F. Coleman
Hon. Tom Gill,
Executive Director
Chairperson
Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the Law
Honolulu, Hawaii
Re:
Comment on Draft of Final Report
Dear Mr. Gill:
Today I received a copy of the Commission's report. I would like to cominend you
for your thoroughness and patience in studying these difficult issues.
I would like to make a correction to the majority report which, at several places,
refers to me as Thomas P. Coleman or omits my middle initial (p. C-2, P. 27 fn 99. P. 31
fn 113. P. 36 in 123. P. 38 fn 128. P. 39 fn 129.) My correct name is Thomas E Coleman
Thank you in advance for making this correction.
I would also like to make the following correction and comments regarding the
minority report. The minority report states, at page 91. "Mr. Coleman stated that he is a
homosexual" I'm not sure if the meeting was tape recorded, but if it was and if the tape
is reviewed carefully, you will find that I never stated that I am a homosexual It would be
appropriate for that sentence in the minority report to be deleted since such a comment was
never made by me at the hearing. If the author of the minority report refuses to delete this
sentence, I believe that it would be the prerogative of the majority to delete it from the final
report
I would also like to comment on footnote 242 in the minority report. Had the
minority done B proper search of available computer databases, they would have discovered
that during the past seven years, I was mentioned and quoted in more than 30 newspaper
and magazine articles dealing with domestic partnership or discrimination on the basis of
marital status and sexual orientation. Articles mentioning Thomas F. Coleman" have
appeared in the following publications (attached): Time Magazine, Los Angeles Times, New
York Times, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, San
Francisco Chronicle, Long Beach Press Telegram, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, McCalls,
Orlando Sentinel Los Angeles Daily News, and U.S. News and World Report The
minority's failure to discover any of these articles casts doubt on their research abilities.
Post Office Box 65756, Los Angeles, CA 90065 / (213) 258-8955 / FAX 258-8099
Letter from Thomas F. Coleman to Commission regarding comments to November 22, 1995 Draft
Report, dated November 30, 1995.
263
SPECTRUM INSTITUTE
Tom Gill
November 30 1995
Page 2
The failure of the minority to discover references to "Spectrum Institute" probably
stems from the fact that the media has usually referred to the "Family Diversity Project,"
which is a project of Spectrum Institute, rather than referring specifically to the corporate
name of "Spectrum Institute." I have enclosed a brochure about Spectrum Institute, which
lists its two major projects, one of which deals with family diversity. I believe that this
brochure was previously submitted to the Commission.
Also, so that the record will be clear regarding the activities of Spectrum Institute,
I am enclosing letters from various organizations which we have assisted in the past few
months. They include: American Association of Retired Persons. ACLU Foundation,
Service Employees International Union, City of Atlanta, and the Los Angeles City Council.
Finally, the minority's insinuation that I have not written anything on the topics
under study by the Commission is certainly misleading. I submitted many government
reports to the Commission staff, including, I believe: Report of the Anti-Discrimination
Task Force of the California Insurance Commissioner, Final Report of the Los Angeles City
Attorney's Task Force on Marital Status Discrimination, Final Report of the Los Angeles
City Task Force on Family Diversity, and excerpts from the final report of the Governor's
Commission on Personal Privacy - all of which I authored.
To counter the innuendos regarding the bona fides of Spectrum Institute, and to
dispel the myth that I have not been quoted by the media as an expert in the field of
marital status and sexual orientation discrimination. it would certainly be proper for the
majority to make some appropriate comment in the Majority Response to the Minority
Report, even if in a footnote.
Good luck in finalizing your work, and thank you for the opportunity to participate
in this historic project.
Sincerely,
Them 7 Calem
THOMAS F. COLEMAN
Letter from Thomas F. Coleman to Commission regarding comments to November 22, 1995 Draft
Report, dated November 30, 1995.
264
Princeton University Department of Politics
Corwin Hall
Princeton, NJ 08544-1012
TEL: (609) 258-6831
Andrew Koppelman
FAX: (609) 258-4772
Assistant Professor
E-MAIL: [email protected]
December 4, 1995
Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Fax: (808) 587-0681
Dear Commissioners,
Herewith are my comments on your November 22 draft report. As
a general matter, its recommendations are eminently sensible and
well-reasoned. These comments address a few details of the report
that, in my opinion, can be improved. It also addresses a few
egregious errors in the minority report.
On p. 29, n. 97, a good source to cite would be Samuel
Marcosson, "The 'Special Rights' Canard in the Debate Over Lesbian
and Gay Civil Rights," 9 Notre Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 137
(1995).
on pp. 30-34, it would be helpful for purposes of educating
the public if the report explained the way in which the Baehr V.
Lewin court relied on the analogy with Loving V. Virginia. I have
defended this analogy extensively in my own writing. See, e.g., my
"Why Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex
Discrimination," 69 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 197 (1994).
On p. 32, n. 102, the obligatory citation would be to
Charlotte Patterson, "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents, Child
Development 63:1025-42 (1992), cited on p. G-7 of your report,
which is the most comprehensive review to date of the studies that
have been done of children of lesbian and gay parents. Pp. 71-74
of the minority report ought to be answered here. The discussion
of children there is sheer fantasy, consisting in claims about the
inferior quality of parenting by lesbians and gays that are
entirely unsupported, indeed refuted, by all the evidence we now
have. This part of the minority report slanders many responsible,
caring parents, evidently without bothering to find out whether
there is any basis at all for its claims. (Patterson's survey is
not cited or addressed, nor are any of the studies she cites.) It
is reprehensible for public officials to make such cavalier,
groundless, and damaging claims.
On p. 33 of the majority report and pp. 68-69 of the minority
Letter from Andrew Koppelman letter to Commission regarding comments to November 22, 1995
Draft Report, dated December 4, 1995.
265
report, Jennifer Gerarda Brown's important conclusions about the
likely economic effects of recognizing same-sex marriage are
rejected on the basis of testimony before the Commission, the
content of which is left unspecified. All we are told is that two
economists disagree with Brown. If you reject her arguments, you
ought to say why. You seem persuaded by the "tipping" argument,
but this is addressed well on pp. 806-810 of her article, which
deserves an answer in the text of the report.
On p. 34 n. 11, you indicate that the summary of Hawaii polls
reproduced on the last page of the draft, which somewhat
prejudicially puts "same-sex 'marriage'" in scare quotes, is from
an unknown source. I have a copy of the source in my possession.
It is the August, 1994 issue of Michael Gabbard's newsletter, Stop
Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii, p. 4.
On the weaknesses of the procreation-based argument against
same-sex marriage, you may find helpful pp. 273-277 of my N.Y.U.
Law Review article, cited above. In particular, the argument is
inconsistent with Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), in which
the U.S. Supreme Court held that prison inmates, some of whom are
serving life sentences and so cannot procreate, have a right to
marry.
on p. 38, the Commission briefly discusses the argument,
presented on p. 89 of the minority report, that churches would be
forced to marry same-sex couples even if their faith forbids them
from sanctifying such unions. This is a silly argument that does
not deserve extended discussion, but a couple of illustrations
might help to show how silly it is. There are already marriages
recognized by every state that some religions refuse to recognize.
Many rabbis will not celebrate intermarriages between Jews and non-
Jews. The Catholic church will not celebrate marriages in which
one of the parties is divorced, and the former spouse is still
living. The legal right of Jewish and Catholic clergy to
discriminate in this way has never, so far as I am aware, been
questioned by anyone.
Finally, the minority report's description, on pp. 83-84 of
its report, of the process by which the American Psychological
Association decided that homosexuality is not a pathology,
blatantly misrepresents one of its sources, Ronald Bayer's book
Homosexuality and American Psychiatry. Bayer's study is largely an
account of how the views of such therapists as Charles Socarides,
on whom the minority report relies heavily, became discredited as
inconsistent with all the evidence. Bayer observes, on p. 34, that
Socarides' arguments for treating homosexuality as a pathology are
"sometimes opaque." It is astonishing that the minority cites his
book as supportive of its views. It may be helpful to the
Commission to have a summary of the relevant intellectual
developments.
2
Letter from Andrew Koppelman letter to Commission regarding comments to November 22, 1995
Draft Report, dated December 4, 1995.
266
The history is basically as follows. The modern psychiatric
proponents of the disease view have relied on the claim
(disagreeing with Freud) that all human beings were
constitutionally predisposed to heterosexuality and that only
overwhelming environmental forces, specifically massive fears
induced during childhood, could divert sexual object choice toward
a same-sex object. These writers, principally Sandor Rado, Irving
Bieber, and Socarides, all thought that this diversion is caused by
severe early developmental disturbances. All therefore concluded
that homosexuality must invariably be associated with severe
personality disorders. (There were differences of opinion as to
how early the trauma occurred, and therefore how profound the
consequent disturbance was. These views are described in Bayer,
Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, pp. 28-38.) The only
homosexuals any of these doctors knew, of course, were their
patients, who had come to them precisely because they were leading
troubled lives. "Since it was assumed that all homosexuals
suffered from a pathological condition there was no question about
the methodological soundness of relying upon patients for a more
general understanding of the disorder." Bayer, p. 41.
The reason why the disease theory has now been abandoned by
most psychiatrists and psychologists is that this prediction has
been demonstrated to be false, most importantly by Evelyn Hooker's
studies, which found that psychologists judging projective test
results of matched pairs of male homosexuals and heterosexuals
could not distinguish the homosexuals from the heterosexuals, and
categorized two-thirds of the members of both categories as of
average adjustment or better. Evelyn Hooker, "The Adjustment of
the Male Overt Homosexual, 21 J. Projective Techniques 18 (1957).
Hooker's work is discussed in Bayer, Homosexuality and American
Psychiatry, pp. 49-53. See also Sylvia A. Law, "Homosexuality and
the Social Meaning of Gender," 1988 Wisc. L. Rev. 187, 212-14, and
citations therein. The disease theory also misconstrued the nature
of homosexual desire, which it held could not be the basis of
enduring, loving relationships. Thus Socarides wrote that mutual
love "cannot be achieved in any homosexual relationship on an
enduring basis," because "there are multiple underlying factors
which constantly threaten any ongoing homosexual relationship:
destruction, mutual defeat, exploitation of the partner and the
self, oral-sadistic incorporation, aggressive onslaughts, and
attempts to alleviate anxiety -- all comprising a pseudo-solution
to the aggressive and libidinal conflicts that dominate and torment
the individuals involved." Charles W. Socarides, "Homosexuality --
Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics," 10 Int'l J. Psychiatry 118,
119, 122 (1972). It has since been documented that many homosexual
relationships are, except for the sex of the participants and the
legal status of the union, indistinguishable from heterosexual
marriages. A study of San Francisco bay area gays found that 29%
of the men, and almost three-fourths of the women, were currently
involved in a stable relationship. Alan Bell & Martin Weinberg,
3
Letter from Andrew Koppelman letter to Commission regarding comments to November 22, 1995
Draft Report, dated December 4, 1995.
267
Homosexualities (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 91, 97.
Many of these couples foster the same intimacy, caring, and
enduring commitment that are valued in the most successful
heterosexual marriages. See Kath Weston, Families We Choose:
Lesbians, Gays, Kinship (New York: Columbia University Press,
1991) ; Letitia Anne Peplau, "Research on Homosexual Couples: An
Overview," 8 J. Homosexuality 3 (Winter 1982), and citations in
both of these works.
Notwithstanding this evidence, some psychiatrists continue to
insist that homcsexuality is a disease. Their reasons for thinking
so, however, have become increasingly obscure. Consider the murky
formulations of Socarides, the most prominent member of the faction
of the psychiatric community that still holds the disease view.
Heterosexual object choice is outlined from birth by
anatomy and then reinforced by cultural and environmental
indoctrination. It is supported by universal human
concepts of mating and the traditions of the family unit,
together with the complementariness and contrast between
the two sexes. Everything from birth to death is
designed to perpetuate the male-female combination. This
pattern is not only culturally ingrained, but
anatomically outlined. The term "anatomically outlined"
does not mean that it is instinctual to choose a person
of the opposite sex. The human being is a biologically
emergent entity derived from evolution, favoring
survival.
Charles Socarides, "Homosexuality," in Silvano Arieti, ed.,
American Handbook of Psychiatry, 2nd. ad. (New York: Basic Books,
1974), V. 3, p. 291; quoted in Bayer, Homosexuality and American
Psychiatry, PP. 34-35. The argument seems quite mystical, and it is
hard to imagine any empirical evidence that could have any impact
on this view. The Commission's conclusion that sectarian religious
views are not an appropriate basis for public policymaking is
entirely applicable here.
I hope these comments are helpful, and look forward to seeing
the final report.
Sincerely,
park
Andrew Koppelman
4
Letter from Andrew Koppelman letter to Commission regarding comments to November 22, 1995
Draft Report, dated December 4, 1995.
268
DISCUSSION OF SOME BENEFITS WHICH MAY ACCRUE TO INDIVIDUALS
FROM EXTENDING MARITAL BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS
A Testimony Before the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Mohch Ghali
Retired Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii
The Commission hus heard testimonies by Professor Summer La Croix and Mr. David
Shimabukuro regarding the possible benefits to individuals which may bc available should
domestic partners bc extended rights now available only to married couples. The purpose
of my testimony is to clarify some of the points raised in these two assimonics and 10
point the need for specific information without which the value and the COSIS of the
potential benefits cannot he evaluated. 1 will attempt as much as possible to indicate
which areas are worth pursuing. and the data that would bc required.
Underlying much of what follows is a concept on which all economists agree: in any
redistributive economic policy corresponding to each benefit extended there is a cost of
equal or greater magnitude. This is so because as long as we are dealing with distribution
not production in an economic environment with resource constraints, benefit to an
individual is a cost to another. llad there been free benefits, there would be no point of
policy decisions. The cost will thus be at least equal to the benefit 1 say at least because
the implementation of the policy and the administration of the benefit transfer will require
some resources which some may call burcaucratic cost, administrative costs, or
deadweight loss. but by whatever name, they are additional costs.
These cost should not mean that redistributive policies are inherently had. In some
instances there are overarching social objectives which justify the additional COSIS.
Realizing this places an added importance on the need for precise definitions and accurate
measurements of the benefits. as we know the cost will bc at least that much, and that this
is the information which policy makers need if they are to properly discharge their
responsibilities.
I will confinc my remarks to the benefits discussed in those testimonies, however, I will be
happy 10 provide further remarks which may help the Commission in its deliberations on
any other potential benefits which may be brought hefore you.
1. Benefits from Marriage with a Small Expected Value
Economists and statisticians use a concept expected value" to measure the value of a
future benefit which on individual may or may not receive. The expected value of a benefit
is the economic value of the benefit multiplied by the probability that the individual will
actually FCI that benefit. Thus if there is very small probability, say I in & 1000 chance
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of
Economics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-30 through T-34.
269
that I will take advantage of a particular benefit, say waiver of the nonresident tuition
differential at the UH, and that differential is $1,500. the expected value of that benefit 10
me is only $1.50 ($1,500 X .001). If taking advantage of the benefit will occur in the
future, say 5 years hence, economists apply a discount to the expected value of the benefit.
For example, if the nonresident tuition waiver may be used five years hence, the $1.50
needs to be discounted (say at 10% interest rate), yielding a present value of the 96 cents.
Because, many of the benefits listed by Professor La Croix under this heading have very
small probabilities of being used, as he correctly points out, the expected value of each
benefit is small, and the sum of the discounted expected values of this group of benefits is
likely LO be small. While it is possible to collect data to measure the discounted expected
values of these benefits, 1 do not believe the magnitude of the benefits is sufficient to
justify the cost of the data acquisition.
2. Onc time only Benefits from Marriage.
One can ensure that assets are efficiently transmitted 10 beneficiaries at death by having a
simple will, for which one can usc the very inexpensive simple forms available in stationary
stores. If one needs 10 establish a trust, it must bc for other reasons, and those reasons
apply to people regardless of their marital status. Durable powers of auomey do not
require marital status, one need not hc related to an individual to grant that Individual a
durable powers of attorney. The only case I can think of where marital status confer a
benefit, is dying without a valid will. Under these conditions 1 spouse would bc treated
differently from a domestic partner. But the remedy is currently available and is very
inexpensive: a simple will. I do not believe that date or measurement are warranted for
this category of potential benefits.
3. Retirement Health Insurance Benefus:
Currently spouses are covered by the retiring spouse's medical insurance, a benefit which
is not available to non-spouses. The value of the benefits to a "spouse" is calculated by
Professor La Croix at $1,464 for a medical insurance and $533.20 for Medicare Part B
policy. The total is $1,997.20 per person annually. What I would like to point out is that
the benefits to one person are costs to someone else, and that cost considerations must hc
introduced in the discussion. The Health Fund, or the private employer will face
increased costs of almost $2,000 per eligible person. It is crucial to collect data in order
to calculate the estimated fiscal impact on the ERS and the Health Fund, for an informed
decision on the potential cost of extending the coverage 10 non-married couples depends
on the costs as well as the benefits. It is also important to evaluate whether a general
increase in employee contributions will be required or will the additional cost be covered
by State tax revenues. Date from the ERS on the average (say over 10 years) annual COST
of spousal medical coverage; as well as an estimate of the number of domestic partners
who are expected 10 benefit are needed. These data are indispensable to reaching an
informed decision.
2
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of
Economics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-30 through T-34.
270
4. Retirement Pension Benefus:
Professor La Croix lists the three options offered to the retirec by ERS. However, hc
docs not consider in his discussion Option 1. rather hc concentrates his analysis on the
other two options. All three options have the same expected value. Option 1: receiving a
Jump-sum payment is available 10 all retirees. Choosing that option, one can buy an
annuity from a private sector insurance company and designate any beneficiary one
chooses. If the rate of return in the private sector is higher than in the ERS. one can
actually SCI a better income stream doing that
Now regarding Options 2 and 3, the ERS uses the term 64 designated beneficiary" not
spouse. As Mr. Shimabukuro pointed out in his testimony, a domestic partner, or anyone
else. can be the designated as the beneficiary under these options, under the existing ERS
definitions. Thus there are no additional benefits to be realized in the pension plan.
5. Health Insurance:
If it is true, as Professor La Croix states, that most of the couples who are domestic
partners in Hawaii are working, and thus, each individual is covered by health insurance,
there is no problem 10 be solved. It is possible that one of the domestic partners will not be
working and thus will have no health coverage unless the other domestic partner
purchases iL
For a number of years economists have studied the problem of the allocation of time
within a family, including the division of labor between the spouses. Economists consider
a spouse's decision to work at home rather than enter the labor force as an economic
decision made by the family, hopefully rationally, realizing the implications regarding loss
of income, benefits of not working tax implications, as well as health coverage. social
security and other taxes, and retirement benefits. Considering the costs of non-
participation in the labor market and the economic value to the family of the non-market
work at home. a spouse will work at home if the expected gain exceeds the costs, and that
CONT includes purchase of the additional health Insurance coverage. True, providing health
coverage for non-working spouses but not for non-working domestic partners makes the
cast of staying home higher by $1,251.48 for the domestic partner than the cost of staying
home for the spouse. It is unlikely, however, that compared to the forgone income from
employment that the $1,251.48 is the determining factor in the choice of whether or not to
work. Economist agree that government subsidies distort market prices and resource
allocation, thus a subsidy to non-working spouses affects the efficiency of resource
allocation. But economists also agree (in what is called theory of the second-best) that
two wrongs do not make a right: balancing a subsidy to one group by a subsidy to
another can increase the inefficiency in resource allocation.
Finally, if for the suke of equity, rather than efficiency in resource allocation, one is willing
to subsidize the choice of a domestic partner to stay home rather than work, someone will
3
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of
Economics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-30 through T-34.
271
have to pay that extra $1,251.48 so that the benefits can bc extended. Again, the benefits
to a group must be balanced against the cost of an identical magnitude(assuming no
administrative costs) to another group. That balancing is a political decision. However,
the politicians will need data on the possible magnitude of this subsidy, and the alternate
sources for its financing If they are to make informed decisions. Here data are needed on
the number of domestic partners who do not participate in the labor market, and an
analysis of the alternative ways of funding the coverage.
6. Major Tax Considerations:
The Federal tax code's differential treatment of married and single individuals applies, as
Professor La Croix points out, both ways: it gives an advantage for married couples with
highly unequal incomes and penalizes a married couple with equal incomes. It is not clear,
however that domestic partners will gain as & group if they gel "married". Unless data
show that most or all same-scx couples are of the unequal income category, there is no
reason to assume a general benefit. Data on the distribution of incomes of domestic
partners are needed for a conclusion to bc reached regarding the potential impact of the
Federal LAX code. Legal analyses are needed to determine if the Federal tax filing status of
domestic couples would change as a result of State action.
The advantage of deferring the transfer tax on estates valued at over $600,000 can be
accomplished by anyone through the creation of trusts. One does not even need to
establish 2 trust to defer the payment of chilic taxes when the first partner dies. If
property (rcal estate and financial and personal assets) are all held by the partners as joint
tenants, there will be no transfer at the death of one of the partners. After the death of the
surviving partner, the tax liability occurs: but that is the same as would happen to a
married couple) If one's choice is not to hold assets in joint tenancy, one can then
establish trusts. That too holds for married couples.
7. Death Benefits:
Under the current ERS rules. as Mr. Shimabukuro testified, the benefits payable upon the
death in-service of an employee are available only to the surviving spouse (until no
married) and the dependent children (under age 18) if the employee was under the
noncontributory plan. If the member was under the contributory plan. the beneficiary.
who can be a non-spouse would scl the ordinary death benefits. and if the death was
accidental, the beneficiary also gels the members accumulated contributions. The only
benefit exclusive to spouses under the contributory plan is an additional pension.
Data on the number of cases of in-service death as a percent of the total active
membership over the pas! five years would give a reasonable estimate of the probability of
the death benefits. The average payment per case of in service death over the past five
years would be a reasonable estimate of the benefit value. Both of these data should be
4
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of
Economics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-30 through T-34.
272
easily available from the ERS. The benefit value multiplied by the probability would yicld
the expected value of the death benefits. This figure, the expected value of death benefits
10 survivors of non-contributory members is needed to measure both the potential benefits
and costs of any policy change.
Similarly, the expected value of the exclusive spouse pension under the contributory plan
can be calculated to evaluate the potential benefit and cost of policy change.
8. Hawalian Home Lands Lease
Professor La Croix list as the last of the major benefits the right of a surviving partner to
maintain a lease on Hawaiian Home Lands parcel after the death of the Hawaiian partner
who held the lease on the parcel. There is a cost to extending this benefit that must he
evaluated. As long as there is & shortage of Hawaiian home sites, which may bc evidenced
by waiting lists, to allow the domestic partner to remain in the Hawaiian Hone Lands
property, thus saving $4,812 annually in rent, means that an eligible Hawalian family is
denied that property, and is paying rent elsewhere. To the extent that the Hawaiian family
on the waiting list pays a rent higher than the $4,812 annually (as they are likely to have
dependent children in the family). there is an inefficiency in the allocation of resources.
Data on the excess demand for Hawaiian Home Lands parcels should be easily available.
To evaluate this potential benefit, one needs to know the frequency of domestic
partnerships that occupy Hawalian Home Lands properties at this time. An opinion survey
of Hawaiian community attitude towards granting the rights to domestic partners of
Hawaiians in preference to other Hawaiian families would be helpful. as it will ultimately
be the Hawaiian Home Lands that will make the decision regarding the extension of this
benefit 10 domestic partners.
Conclusion:
Data are needed only for the benefits discussed above under 3 an 5 (medical), and 7 (death
while in service). Much of these data could be by analysis of the historical data of the
ERS. A more significant effort would be needed to conduct the opinion survey needed
under 8.
5
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Testimony of Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of
Conomics, University of Hawaii, Pages T-30 through T-34.
273
HAWAII, TOURISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
A Testimony Before the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
Moheb Ghali
Retired Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii
J. Introduction
In an article published recently I Professor Jennifer G. Brown sels out to prove
that there are great financial rewards to the first state that legalizes same-sex marriages.
In the third paragraph of the article she states that "The tourism revenue from same-sex
marriages could exceed $4 billion." The $4 billion figure appears many times throughout
the paper, and should, in Professor Brown's opinion, provide a compelling reason for
Hawaii to consider the legalization of such marriages.
For Professor Brown's suggestion to bc considered the public policy dehate on the
issue. one needs to examine its merits as a viable economic option. As wc show below,
the benefit estimated by Brown are groundless and her argument is without merit when
viewed as an economic argument
11. Methodology and the Underlying Model
Wc begin by discussing a methodological issue important to assessing the value of
the estimates provided by Professor Brown The argument developed in the paper is
based on an underlying economic model implicit in the calculations of economic impacts
she performs. The economic model Professor Brown uses is the most primitive Keynesian
type where unemployment and excess capacity are caused solely by Insufficiency of
effective demand. The notion of the multiplier comes out of the Keynesian demand type
model where the structure of the economy is depicted in very few (four or five) equations.
Such a devise is of not much value in policy discussions. First, the structure of the
economy and the interactions between its various sectors are much more complex than can
bc depicted by such a model². Secondly. the production side of the economy is entirely
ignored in such demand sided models. Also ignored in such models are the supply of
factors of production and the changes in the supply over time through the regional
.
This testimony is condensation of a more detailed anaylsis which is available from the author
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-51 through T-56.
275
mobility of capital and labor.3 All these elements and their interactions, as well us the
dynamic structure of the economy do play significant roles in determining the response of
economic variables such as personal income, employment and government revenues to a
stimulus such as increased tourism. The use of a "multiplier" to calculate the impact of
increased tourists expenditures is clearly improper.
It should be noted that except in naive static models, the multiplicr is not
instantancous; the successive rounds of expenditures occur over time. It is not, therefore
proper 10 take the present value and simply multiply it by the "multiplier".
Nor is the impact of tourists' expenditures temporally Invariant. The response of
the economy to a stimulus of a given magnitude will vary from year to year depending on
such factors as the rate of capacity utilization, the unemployment rate. the interest rate and
the rate of inflation, among other factors, and these do vary over time.. The structure of
the economy itself changes over time making impact prodictions beyond 1 handful of years
untenable. Yel Professor Brown uses "the multiplier". a single number which is constant
over time. to estimate 20 year effects.
These complexities do not mcan that nothing can bc done to estimate the impact of
increased tourism. Much can and has been donc, and specifically for Hawaii. A realistic
model which incorporates the dynamic features and the varied interactions and feedbacks
in the economy can be constructed and its cocfficients estimated (the coefficients need to
be re-estimated periodically LO capture any structural changes). The model can then be
used to simulate the response of the various economic variables to any stimulus or
combination of stimuli. A study of this type examining the impact of sourism growth in
Hawaii is available. and while it is dated, the methodology is clear and the parameter
estimates can be easily updated.4
These remarks on the "multiplier" used by Professor Brown to generate the
economic impact of the initial tourists' spending apply equally to the use of the other
"multipliers "10 generate the increase in household wealth. in government revenues' and
in jobs listed in Table 5.
Finally, the employment multiplier, an extension of the income multiplier. which
converts the additional income into additional "jobs" is not a very uscful concept. Even if
2
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-51 through T-56.
276
one regarded labor as homogeneous, and in reality this assumption is false, the impact of a
given expenditure increase on employment will depend. as we pointed out above. on a
number of variables such as capacity utilization, the extent of unemployment, the state of
technology, the wage rate, not to mention the supply of labor and the factors which
influence it
111. The Residency Requirement
Turning from methodology to one of the assumptions made by Professor Brown,
WC find that the same-scx couple would travel to the first state that legalizes same-sex
marriage and spend 10 days which Professor Brown recommends that the state imposes
as a residency requirement. The possible negative impact of a 10 day residency
requirement is dismissed in a cavalier manner in a footnote. It is clear that Professor
Brown either underestimates or is unaware of the number of Japanese citizens who visit
Hawaii to gel married. The effect of imposing 1 10 day residency requirement may be
losing all of that market The demand of these tourists is certainly elastic as there are
other alternative destinations. Any serious consideration of a residency requirement
should closely investigate the potential impact on that market
IV. Migration As A Possible Outcome
Will the married couple return to their home strie? Professor Brown asseris, with
great confidence but with no evidence, that almost all of the couples who come to the
state to wcd will return to their home states. Although the legal change may induce some
gay and lesbian couples to move permanently to the first -mover state in scarch of a gay-
friendly place. it is likely that couples will Lake up residence in the firsi-mover state only if
they had employment opportunities there.". This is an assertion about an empirical issue
that cannot, because of its potential impact. bc taken at face value, rather it deserves
scrious research. Statements made by Professor Brown elscwhere in the paper in
conjunction with a widely accepted economic proposition lead us to the opposite
conclusion. The well known economic proposition is due to Professor Charles Ticbout,
states that "Pcople vote with their feel." If the freedom of movement is unrestricted,
people will sclect 10 live in the communities and jurisdictions which best reflect their
3
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-51 through T-56.
277
preferences. If there is only one state that is "a gay-friendly place" one would expect
migration by same-scx couples to that state.
Same-sex couples getting married certainly would have a very strung incentive to
move to the first-mover state, as iL by definition, grants them all the rights and benefits of
a married couple. These rights need not be recognized upon return to the home state.
Many states have a "marriage evasion provision" which invalidates a marriage solemnized
in another state if the couple were married in that state specifically to cvade the laws of
their home state. Confronted with the numerous benefits the same-sex couple are entitled
to under the laws-of Hawaii and the almost certainty that their home state will neither
recognize their marriage nor grant them the rights and benefits. same-scx couples voting
with their seci is the likely outcome given their mobility.
Should migration of same-sex couples to Hawaii occur, what would bc the impact?
According to Professor Brown estimation there will be 140,250 marriages in each of the
first five years and 25,500 marriages per year thereafter. If wc assume that only one
fourth of the couples who set married will choose to migrate to Hawaii, certainly not an
unreasonable assumption in view of the expected benefits, we can expect 35,000 couples
or 70,000 individuals to bc added to Hawaii's population in each of the first five years,
and 12,570 cach year thereafter. The impact on housing, infrastructure such as utilities
and roads, labor markets and government services can be quite large.
V. The Four Billion Dollars Question
Returning to the $4 billion: is it true that "Four billion dollars rest on the table,
waiting for one of the players to scize the prize." 9" At this point wc need to recall our
initial discussion of the underlying economic model. The model assumes the existence of
unemployment and excess capacity for the increased demand to generate increased rcal
income and employment. otherwise only inflation, or as happened in the 1980's
"suignation" would result. It is therefore crucial to consider whether the $4 billion
represents an increase in real income, that is output. and whether the employment
increases predicted by Professor Brown will occur.
First, it is necessary to keep in mind that the $4 billion is the present value of a
stream of income spread over 20 years. As such. the $4 billion calculation requires that
4
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-51 through T-56.
278
the conditions of "Keyncsian type deficiency in effective demand" persist over that 20 year
period. Professor Brown cites evidence of excess capacity in hotels (a decline of 2% in
occupancy rules in 1993. although she also cites an increase in room rates of 3% for the
past three years). and a corresponding decline in luxury hotel values as evidence of
deficiency in demand. She gives the sluggishness of the Japanese and the United States
economics, and the auraction of other travel destinations as the reasons for the excess
capacity" Neither of these are expected to last for (wenty years. Even if they did, the
market adjustment to asset prices will after & period of time clear the excess capacity. It is
very likely that the asset market adjustment period is considerably less than 20 years.
Secondly, even if the excesss capacity in hotel rooms were to persist (and I do not
believe it will). hotel rooms are not the only input in the production of tourists services.
No evidence is given by Professor Brown of execss supply of labor in the services sector,
not that if such surplus currently exists will persist for 20 years. Infrastructure is also an
input in the production of tourist services. There is strong evidence that the current stock
of capital in infrastructure, such as roads, is fully utilized. Had hotel rooms been the only
input required in the production of tourist services, or had the various inputs been fully
substitutable. Professor Brown's argument would be viable If one can document the
persistence of excess capacity for twenty years into the future. As it is, the limitations on
the supply of any one or a group, of the inputs needed to produce courists services during
any portion of the 20 years makes the calculations of income and employment increases on
the basis of a Keynesian model irrelevant
VL Conclusions
Where docs this leave the $4 billion? We did not discuss Professor Brown's
assumptions regarding the number of gay men and lesbians in the United states, regarding
the percentage of those who would choose to travel to Hawaii for marriage. Nor did we
discuss the assumption regarding the $6,000 expenditures per wodding" We did not
discuss those assumptions because if the underlying model used to generate the results is
not valid, assumptions about initial expenditures are irrelevant, and the simple calculations
provided are groundless. Professor Brown has chosen to present her argument as an
economic proposition. We treated it as such and found it has no merit
5
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-51 through T-56.
279
, Jeunifer Gerards Brown," Competitive Federalism And the Legislative Incentives to Recognize Same-
Scr Marriage." Southern California Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 4. (1995). P. 745-839.
3 Sec for example Molich Ghali and Bertrand Renaud, The Structure and Dynamic Properties of a
Regional Economy. Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Toronto, London, 1975.
, For the role of supply in regional growth acc Moheh Ghall, M. Akiyama and J. Hujiwara," Models or
Regional Cirowth, An Empirical livaluation," Regional Science and Urban Economics. 11(1981) PP. 175.
190. North Holland. For the effects of factor mobility on regional growth acc Mobch Ghali, M. Akiyama,
and J. Fujiwara "Factor Mobility and Regional Growth," The Review of Economics and Statistics. LX,
No., (1978). pp. 78.84). Harvard University.
a See Mulich Ghali, cd, Tourison and Regional Growth. Studies in Applied Regional Science, Vol. 11,
Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division, Leiden, 1977.
$ Furthermore, because the naive nature of the model underlying the calculations It is not clear whether
some of these ttems are additive. Is the Increase in government Lax revenue a part of the increased Income
or is 11 in addition? That is is the Increase in Income increase in personal income, gross output or
disposable Income. Is the Increase in household weald in addition 10 the increase in income? By what
mechanism is this wealth created: approciation of property? savings? or Is 11 the present value or the
sucam or incomes to Use housebolds?
"Nots that the figure Brown USES for "the multiplier" h based on 1 1983 study using 1970-1980 data.
Although the footnote to the uhle from which the figure is derived (Table 211 State of Hawaii Data
Book) RIMICS that the figures have been revised, IXI reference or documentation for the revisions are
provided.
, Brown, p.815.
# Brown, p.836.
, Brown also clies the potential millury base closings as a future possible negative impact. Most military
personnel stationed In Hawaii live on the base or in private residential areas. Many shop in the military
exchange sinces. Those who are visitors are likely to stay in the Itale KoM, a military hotel in a princ
Waikiki location and with very low room prices.
IC Professor Brown is willing to cnicrain the possibility that: "If the $6,000 assumption accms inflated.
the bripact of an even more conservative assumption can bc easily calculated. Assuming that same-sex
woodings would generate only no-ball as much tourism revenue($3,000 per wedding) simply bulves the
Impact on the state economy: Legalizing same-sex marriage would still generate two billion dollars In
tourism
" Brown N.77G. A glaring example of carcless calculations producing meaningless numbers is given in
her Table 6. The revenues and wealth and jobs calculated using Hawaii's tourist expenditures, length of
stay, "multiplier" "government revenue multiplier. and employment multiplier are assumed to bold for
SIHICS as diverse as Novada, Vennoni and California.
6
Excerpt from the Minutes of October 11, 1995, Moheb Ghali, Retired Professor of Economics,
University of Hawaii, Pages T-51 through T-56.
280
DIANE SUTTON
PO Box 354
PAHOA, HAWAR 96778
(808) 965-6654
FAX: (BOB) 965-6654
November 7, 1995
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
State of Hawaii
RE: Testimony for Wednesday, November 8, 1995
Members of the Commission:
I must begin with a formal complaint regarding the distance I traveled in order to attend the hearing, and the
expense involved We on the Neighbor Islands have not been given equal access to, nor equal voice in, these
hearings which could ultimately affect us.
I have come from Pahoa on the Big Island I am the mother of three and the grandmother of two, and have lived
on the Big Island for ten years. Last year I served on the Paboa High and Intermediate School SCBM as a
representative, and will address you today regarding an issue in Paboa which is germane to sexual orientation-
based public policy and relevant to the commission
In December 1993 Tom Aitken, seventh and eighth grade counselor at Paboa School, wrote in Island Lifestyles,
a local monthly magazine for the homosexual community, "I am a DOE counselor. I have organized a Project
10 in my school." "Project 10" is an advocacy and promotional tool for "gay" counselors in our schools to
draw students into a homosexual social and political identity without their parents' involvement, knowledge or
consent.
Project 10 was brought to remote Pahoa through the "back door," unbeknown to parents, community and district
and state school administrators. At the time of Mr. Aitken's Island Lifestyles letter neither the parents, the
community, the Hawaii State Board of Education nor the Department of Education were sware of the program's
existence Parents learned later that Pahoa Project 10 had been implemented a full year earlier by unilateral
approval from the school principal as a suicide prevention program
The philosophy of Project 10 as stated in its curriculum is based on the belief that bomosexual thoughts, feelings,
fantasies and behavior make one a homosexual, and that if an individual is a homosexual, he is "gay" politically
and socially. It characterizes the Project 10 counselor, preferably a homosexual, as non-directive in his guidance.
It addresses the problems of suicide, alcohol, drug abuse, and school drop out with the need to "reinforce" the
student's "gay" identity.
The project 10 package included:
Developmental services which support "gay affirmative goals" (Project 10 Handbook) mandating that
homosexuality be presented as equally desirable with beterosexuality irrespective of parents' and
students' beliefs.
A "coming out of the closet" process, creating an us vs. them mentality facilitated by a "gay" school
counselor and initially confidential from parents.
Referral of students without parental knowledge to "gay" community groups whose sexual standards are
permissive.
Ixcerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Diane Sutton, Pages T-86 and
-87.
281
Parental and community disapproval of the Project 10 program in Pahoa last year resulted in its suspension and
deference to School-Community Based Management As SCBM representative I am often asked questions on
the program's status, and my answer is that Project 10 is dormant, not dead
How can it be, people ask, after two hearings documenting parental and community opposition to Project 10, that
there is risk of reimplementation? Gay activists' tenacious efforts to resuscitate it combined with administrators'
obfuscation and hesitancy to challenge it could result in its reimplementation regardless of public sentiment
On October 11 this year Mr. Aitken celebrated "gay coming out day" by placing one of these pink triangles in
each teacher's box at Paboa School. It reads, "I will educate myself 00 the diversity of sexualities, in order to
better understand differences and similarities among straights, lesbians, bisexuals, gays, transgenders,
transexuals, crossdressers, and drag queens. I will not tolerate put downs based on sexuality (fag, lezie, etc.) and
will pursue infractions with the same zeal as racist slurs. At least one teacher displayed it on the classroom
wall.
Paboa Project 10's link to your task of examining public policy effects of extending marriage benefits to same-
sex couples in Hawaii could be summarized as the domino effect We would be remiss to look the other way and
deny that the concern I've presented to you has bearing on your work here today.
On the subject of teen suicide, nationally known expert Dr. Charles Socarides, clinical professor of psychiatry
at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who has treated more than a thousand clients involved in homosexuality
wrote that suicides of "bomosexual youth" are not the result of society's bostile environment, as the world is more
accepting of homosexuals than it ever was.
He states, "Kids can't come to terms with themselves. They can't stop this unnatural behavior. They wish
someone would help them, and they despair of this They know it is against the biological realities of life."
In a letter printed in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 10, 1994, Mr. Floyd Shaw wrote, "I have been in the gay
community for over 35 years let us clarify this suicide matter. I have had two of my best friends (brothers)
kill themselves because they were gay. They did not commit suicide because they were not accepted - we all loved
them. They killed themselves, as others may do, because they did not want to be gay and felt they had no
alternative. Of course they do!"
I argue on the civil grounds that parents are mandated by state law to send their children to public school. Legal
sanctioning of same-sex marriage would most certainly result in endorsement of school programs which without
parental involvement have the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting bomosexuality as a positive
lifestyle alternative, programs which our community is already on record as not supporting
Respectfully,
Diane Sutton
Excerpt from the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Testimony of Diane Sutton, Pages T-86 and
T-87.
282
DIANE SUTTON
PO Box 354
PANDA, HAWAN 96776
(608) 965-6654
Fax: (BOB) 965-0054
November 9, 1995
Chairman and All Commissioners,
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law
State of Hawaii
Dear Chairman GII,
RE: Discriminatory and inappropriate treatment by commissioners during the presentation of my
testimony at the November 8, 1995 meeting
One purpose of Hawaii State Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law as stated includes discussion of
"subetantial public policy reasons to extend or not to extend (major legal and economic benefits extended to married
opposite-sex couples) to same-sex couples," which, as an invited guest, 1 flew from the Big Island on November
B to address.
During my testimony (approximately seven minutes long) I was interrupted at Icas( three times by a commissioner, and
at one point called a liar These repeated and bostile interruptions resulted in my unintended omission of one entire
paragraph of spoken testimony, having the outcome of effectively silencing me and obstructing my speech.
Rude interruptions and verbal asseuks from the commission as I and others were attempting to speak rendered 11 clear
that the commission is stacked with individuals who have already made up their minds and are committed to promotion
of A pro-bomosexual rights political agenda.
When at one point in my testimony I was literally stopped from speaking due to harassment by Commissioner Morgan
Britt, you stated in an attempt to restore order that there is a wide range of opinions and convictions on the subject
However, my treatment, and behavior by a large majority of the commissioners toward other speakers who followed
me that day, revealed that the subject is really not open to consideration. In a supposedly free environment J found the
one-sided and unhalanced promotion of a single viewpoint and ridicule to those not in agreement extremely disturbing
Responsible individuals with balancing views should have been appointed to this important commission to ensure
proper balance and adherence to guidelines. Incidents like the above described clearly show 1 breakdown in the
character and legitimacy of this commission and discredit he work.
Sincerely,
Diane Sulto
Diane Sutton
S
All Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law Members
Governor Ben Cayetano
Representative Joseph M Sould, Spoaker of the House of Representatives, State of Hawaii
Senator Norman Mizuguchi, President of the Senate, State of Hawaii
Letter to Commission from Diane Sutton, dated November 9, 1995.
283
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABC Television
1995
"Same-Sex Marriage." Nightline. Aired on KITV-4, Sep 25, 30
minutes.
Aeschliman, M.D.
1987
"Sexuality & Sanity. A Review of Men and Marriage by George
Gilder." National Review. Feb 27:52.
Alberta Federation of Women United for Families and Lethbridge Family Watch
1994
"In Defence of Families." Prepared for Alberta Human Rights
Commission, February 1994.
Alexander, Ron
1978
"In Key West, the Latest 'Invaders Have Set Off a Backlash" The
New York Times. Apr 7:10.
American Baptists Concerned
No date
"What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality?" Pamphlet, no
publication details.
American Civil Liberties Union
No date
"Legislative Briefing Series: Domestic Partnership." ACLU, Public
Education Dept., 132 W. 43rd St., NYC, NY 10036, 14 pgs.
Arkes, Hadley
1993
"The Closet Straight. When Andrew Sullivan pleads for gay
marriage, has he thought about what marriage is?" National
Review. July:43.
Averill, Sue
1993
"Desperately Seeking Status: Same-Sex Couples Battle for
Employment-linked Benefits." Akron Law Review. 27:253.
Ayres, Jr., B. Drummond
1977
"Nights are Long and Liquid at Key West." The New York Times.
Jan 24:12.
285
Badgett, M.V. Lee
1994a
"Influence of Family-Related Institutions on Lesbian and Gay
Couples' Decision-making or Lesbian and Gay Campus
Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits." Paper for American
Political Science Association.
1994b
"The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination." Mss.
Sep.
Baehr V. Lewin
1992-1993
Opening Brief; Answering Brief; Reply Brief; Amicus Brief from the
American Civil Liberties Union; Amicus Brief from Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund; Amicus Brief from the Rutherford
Foundation; Supreme Court Opinion (852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530
(1883)); Appellees Motion for Reconsideration & Clarification;
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
1995
(Further Baehr proceedings in the Circuit Court) Defendant's
Motion for Stay of Trial Order Granting Stay of Trial
;
etc.
Balian, Habib
1995
"Til Death Do Us Part: Granting Full Faith and Credit to Marital
Status." Southern California Law Review 68:363.
Bauer, Gary L.
No date
"Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right." In Focus. Family Research
Council.
Bawer, Bruce
1993
A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society. New
York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.
Beattie, John
1991
"Prohibiting Marital Status Discrimination: A Proposal for the
Protection of Unmarried Couples." Hastings Law Journal.
42:1415.
Bernstein, Richard
1994
"When One Person's Civil Rights Are Another's Moral Outrage."
New York Times. Oct 16:6E.
286
Blumenfeld, Warren (ed.)
f.992
Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price. Boston: Beacon Press.
Boswell, John
1980
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
1989
"Jews, Bicycle Riders, and Gay People: The Determination of
Social Consensus and Its Impact on Minorities." Yale Journal of
Law & Humanities. 1:205.
1994
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, New York: Villard Books.
Bowman, Craig and Cornish, Blake
"A More Perfect Union: A Legal and Social Analysis of Domestic
Partnership Ordinances." Columbia Law Review. 92:5:1164.
Broder, David
No date
"Beware the unattached male." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Brown, Jennifer Gerada
1995
"Competitive Federalism and the Legislative Incentives to
Recognize Same-Sex Marriage." Southern California Law Review.
68:4:744.
Brownstein, Amy
1994
"Why Same-Sex Spouses Should be Granted Preferential
Immigration Status: Reevaluating Adams V. Howerton." Loyola
L.A. International & Comparative Law Journal. 16:763.
Burd, Stephen
1993
"New Policy of Naming Scientists Who Are Found Guilty of Fraud
Renews Debate on Federal Role." The Chronicle of Higher
Education. June 30:A24.
Burlingame, Burl
1994
"Talk about a boon to Hawaii tourism." My Turn, Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Feb 19.
Burris, Jerry
1994
"Most don't support same-sex marriage." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Feb 25.
287
Burtoft, Larry, Ph.D.
1995
"The Social Significance of Homosexuality Questions and
Answers" (also distributed as Setting the Record Straight),
distributed by Focus on the Family, 8605 Explorer Drive, Colorado
Springs, CO 80920, (719) 531-34300.
Button, James; Rienzo, Barbara; and Wald, Kenneth
1994
"The Politics of Gay Rights in American Communities." Paper for
American Political Science Association.
Cahil, Lisa Sowle
1982
"Sexuality." America. Jan 9:12.
Cain, Patricia
1993
"Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Legal History." Virginia
Law Review. 79:7:1551.
Cameron, Paul
1985
"Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of
Teacher and Pupil." Psychological Reports. 57:1227.
Cameron, Paul
1991
"What Causes Homosexual Desire and Can It Be Changed?"
Paper prepared for Family Research Institute, Inc., P.O. Box
2091, Washington, D.C. 20013, (703) 690-8536.
Cameron, Paul and Cameron, Kirk
No date
"Homosexual Parents." Paper prepared for Family Research
Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 2091, Washington, D.C. 20013, (703)
690-8536.
Cameron, Paul and Cameron, Kirk
1
No date
"The Prevalence of Homosexuality." Paper prepared for Family
Research Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 2091, Washington, D.C. 20013,
(703) 690-8536.
Cameron, Paul; Proctor, Kay; Coburn, Jr. William; and Forde, Nels
1985
"Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease." The
Nebraska Medical Journal. 70:8:292.
288
Cameron, Paul; Cameron, Kirk; and Kay Proctor
1989
"Effect of Homosexuality on Public Health and Social Order"
Psychological Reports. 64:1167.
Cameron, Paul; Playfair, William L.; and Wellum, Stephen
No date
"The Homosexual Lifespan." Paper prepared for Family Research
Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 2091, Washington, D.C. 20013, (703)
690-8536.
Case, Mary Ann
1993
"Couples and Coupling in the Public Sphere: A Comment on the
Legal History of the Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights."
Virginia Law Review. 79:1643.
Chapman, Stephen
1994
"Gay Moms and Gay Marriage: Can We Find a Better Way?"
Chicago Tribune. Dec 1.
Chase, Adam
1995
"Tax Planning for Same-Sex Couples." Denver University Law
Review. 72:359.
Chollar, Susan
1993
"Happy Families." American Health. July/August:52.
Closen, Michael, and Heise Carol
1992
"HIV-AIDS and the Non-Traditional Family: The Argument for
State and Federal Judicial Recognition of Danish Same-Sex
Marriages." Nova Law Review. 6:2:809.
Cobb, Clifford, Ted Halstead and Jonathan Rowe
1995
"If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?" The Atlantic Monthly.
Oct:59.
Coleman, Thomas F.
1982
"Report of the Commission on Personal Privacy: Excerpts on
Sexual Orientation Discrimination." State of California, Dec
(excluding appendices, endnotes, and index).
Coleman, Thomas F.
1988
"Strengthening Families: A Model for Community Action; Final
Report of the Task Force on Family Diversity-City of Los Angeles."
289
Spectrum Institute, Family Diversity Project, P.O. Box 65756, Los
Angeles, CA 90065. May 19.
Coleman, Thomas F.
1990
"Unmarried Adults: A New Majority Seeks Consumer Protection."
Consumer Task Force on Marital Status Discrimination, Office of
the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA. Mar 29.
Coleman, Thomas F.
1990
"Official Registration of Families with the Secretary of State: A
Report on Legal, Economic, and Psychological Implications."
Spectrum Institute, Family Diversity Project, P.O. Box 65756, Los
Angeles, CA 90065. Dec, revised May 1991.
Coleman, Thomas F.
1993
"A Call to End Unfair Insurance Discrimination Against Unmarried
Consumers: Report of the Anti-Discrimination Task Force of the
California Insurance Commissioner." State of California, July 28.
Colson, Chuck
1993
"It's Perfectly Queer. Homosexuals on Campus." Breakpoint.
Prison Fellowship, Sep., No. 30917.
Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns, American Psychological Association
1993
"American Psychological Association Policy Statements on
Lesbian and Gay Issues." Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Committee on Women in Psychology and Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns,
American Psychological Association.
1991
"Lesbian Parents and Their Children, A Resource Paper for
Psychologists." Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Courson, Marty
1994
"Baehr V. Lewin: Hawaii Takes a Tentative Step to Legalize Same-
Sex Marriage." Golden Gate Law Review. Spring:24:1:41.
Cox, Barbara
1994
"Same-Sex Marriage and Choice of Law: If We Marry in Hawaii,
Are We Still Married When We Return Home?" Wisconsin Law
Review. 1944:1033.
290
ramer, Loralyn
994
"Same Sex Marriage." Hawaii Bar Journal. Oct:7.
Curry, Hayden; Dennis Clifford and Robin Leonard
993
A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples. Berkely: Nolo Press, ,
7th Ed.
Dalton, Harlon
991
"Reflections on the Lesbian and Gay Marriage Debate." Law &
Sexuality. 1:1.
)amslet, Otis
992
"Same-sex Marriage." New York Law School Journal of Human
Rights. Spring:555.
Decter, Midge
980
"The Boys on the Beach." Commentary. 70:3:35.
D'Emilio, John; and Freedman, Estelle
988
Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America.
Derby, Diane
!994
"Vt. To Offer Benefits To Domestic Partners." The Sunday Times
Argus. June:1.
Doll, Lynda S. et al.
1992
"Self-reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Among
Adult Homosexual and Bisexual Men." Child Abuse & Neglect.
16:855.
Drummond, Tammerlin
4
1995
"Not in Kansas Anymore." Time. Sep 25:54.
Duclos, Nitya
1991
"Same Complicating Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage." Law &
Sexuality. 1:31.
Dunford, Bruce
1994a
"Gay marriage ban gets boost." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 3.
1994b
"Graulty has another option on same-sex bill. "Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Apr 7.
291
1994c
"Solomon sees Senate OK on same-sex bill." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Apr 8:A8.
Dunlap, David
1995
"Some States Trying to Stop Gay Marriages Before They Start."
The New York Times. Mar 15:A18.
Dunlap, Mary
1991
"The Lesbian and Gay Marriage Debate: A Microcosm of Our
Hopes and Troubles in the Nineties." Law & Sexuality. 1:63.
Dunlop, David
1995a
"Isle gay marriage debate spurs other states to act." New York
Times. Reprinted in Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Mar 15:A-1.
1995b
"Court upholds anti-homosexual ruling." New York Times.
May 14.
Dunn, Sandra
1995
"Same Sex Marriage." Hawaii Bar Journal. Feb:48.
Eblin, Robert L.
1990
"Note-Domestic Partnership Recognition in the Workplace:
Equitable Employee Benefits for Gay Couples (and Others)." Ohio
State Law Journal. 51:1067.
Editors
1994a
"Same-sex marriage." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 2.
1994b
"State should drop ban on same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Feb 4.
1994c
"Same sex unions." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 6.
1994d
"Same-sex marriage suit put on hold." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Feb 10.
1994e
"Same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Feb 17.
1994f
"Same-sex marriage." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 21.
1994g
"Same-sex unions." The Honolulu Advertiser. Apr 1.
292
994h
"Same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Apr 4.
994i
"Same-sex-unions." The Honolulu Advertiser. Apr 26.
1994j
"Same-sex marriage ban won't settle issue." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Apr 27, 1994.
1994k
"Benefits for Domestic Partners Were Income." Tax Week. CCH
Incorporated, 77:33:3.
1995a
"Same-sex panel, back to the drawing board." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Jan 10:A-8.
1995b
"Same-sex marriage case role denied to Mormons, the courts."
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Mar 29:A-2.
1995c
"Same-sex marriage Commission's reasonable plan." The
Honolulu Advertiser. Nov 19.
1995d
"Same-sex marriages." Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Nov 24.
Elmer, Michael and Lund Larsen, Marianne
1990
"Explanatory article on the legal consequences etc., of the Danish
Law on Registered Partnership." Translated from Jursten. No. 3.
Eskridge, William N.
1993
"A History of Same-Sex Marriage." Virginia Law Review.
79:7:1419.
Evans et al. V. Romer, Case No. 92CV 7223, District Court, City and County of Denver
County, Colorado.
Affidavit of Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Rebuttal Affidavit of Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Farney, Dennis
1994
"Gay Rights Confront Determined Resistance From Some
Moderates." Wall Street Journal. Oct:A1.
Finnis, John M.
1994a
"Law, Morality, and 'Sexual Orientation'." Notre Dame Law
Review. 69:5:1049.
293
1994b
"'Shameless Acts' in Colorado: Abuse of Scholarship in
Constitutional Cases." Academic Questions. 7:4:10.
Fleras, Jomar
1993
"Reclaiming Our Historical Rights: Gays and Lesbians in the
Philippines." In Hendriks, Aart; Tielman, Rob, and van der Veen,
Evert (eds.) on the International Gay and Lesbian Association
(ILGA). The Third Pink Book: A Global View of Lesbian and Gay
Liberation and Oppression. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Foley, Daniel R.
1995
"Case began with denial of licenses." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Nov 26:B-3.
1995
"Gay Marriage a revenue base." Island Voices, The Honolulu
Advertiser. Aug 10:A-10.
Freiberg, Peter
1995a
"Gays Win in South Dakota, Lose in Utah." The Washington
Blade. Mar 3:1
1995b
"Next January Could be a Hot One in Hawaii." The Washington
Blade. Mar 31:21
1995c
"One in Three Think Gays Should have Right to Wed." The
Washington Blade. July 14:23.
Friedlander, Paul C.
1994
"Heading down the not-so-rosy-aisle: Gay marriage a bad idea."
Island Lifestyle. June: 10.
Friedman, Andrew
1992
"Same-Sex Marriage and the Right to Privacy: Abandoning
Scriptural, Canonical, and Natural Law Based on Definitions of
Marriage." Howard Law Review. 35:2:173.
Friedman, Richard, and Downey, Jennifer
1994
"Homosexuality." New England Journal of Medicine. 331:14:923.
294
urwitt, Rob
990.
"Domestic Partners': How Much Recognition?" Governing.
Oct:27.
Gabbard, Mike
995
"Gay marriages will hurt state." Island Voices, The Honolulu
Advertiser. Aug 21:A-6.
Ghali, Moheb (ed.)
977
Tourism and Regional Growth. The Netherlands, Intercontinental
Graphics.
Ghali, Moheb
No date
"No Free Lunch: Just Bad Economics: Ms. Price and the Gay
Tourist Bonus." Response to Price article in Honolulu Star
Bulletin.
Gilder, George
986
"The Sexual Revolution at Home." National Review. Oct 30:30.
Glauberman, Stu
994
"Same-sex marriages, tourism a troubling mix." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Feb 14.
Goldblatt, Henry
:994
"Out of Step with the Times." Human Rights. Fall:24.
Gomes, L. Ku umeaaloha
995
"Is same-sex marriage a right? Not allowing unions is
discriminatory." The Honolulu Advertiser. Nov 26:B-3. (See also
J. Hochberg.)
4
Gonsiorek, John; and Weinrich, James (eds.)
1991
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. London:
Sage Publications.
Greenberg, Pam
1993
"Gay Rights-Civil Rights or Special Rights?" NCSL Legisbrief.
Aug 1:30.
295
Griffin, Kimberly
19944
"To Have and To Hold: Gay Marriage, The Next Frontier." Windy
City Times. June 2:1.
Gross, Jane
1994
"After a Ruling, Hawaii Weighs Gay Marriages." New York Times.
Apr 25:A1.
Hafen, Bruce C.
1991
"Symposium on Family Law." Brigham Young University Law
Review.
Halley, Janet
1993
"Reasoning About Sodomy: Act and Identity In and After,' Bowers
V. Hardwick." Virginia Law Review. 79:7:1721.
Hamby, Jeanette; and Schaffer Bob
1993
"Should state prevent discrimination against gays?
Point/Counterpoint." State Government News. Feb:30.
Hamer, Dean, and Peter Copeland
1994
The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the
Biology of Behavior. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Hansen, Bent and Henning Jorgenson
1991
"The law providing for partnership for gay men and lesbians in
Denmark." Printed by LBL, Postboks 1023, 1007 Kobenhaven K.
Denmark. Nov 19.
Harrison, Beth
1994
"We're Goin' to the Chapel." The Front Page. Nov 25:3.
Hawai'i Equal Rights Marriage Project
1995
"Love and. .Marriage?" Honolulu. (video: 14 min.)
Hawaii State Government
1994
Act 217. Session Laws of Hawaii 1994. Honolulu
1995
Act 5. Session Laws of Hawaii 1995. Honolulu.
296
lendriks, Aart; Tielman, Rob; and van der Veen, Evert (eds.) of the International Gay and
Lesbian Association (ILGA)
993
The Third Pink Book: A Global View of Lesbian and Gay Liberation
and Oppression. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Henson, Deborah
993
"A Comparative Analysis of Same-Sex Partnership Protections:
Recommendations for American Reform." International Journal of
Law & the Family. 7:282.
1994
"Will Same-Sex Marriages be Recognized in Sister States?: Full
Faith and Credit and Due Process Limitations on States' Choice of
Law Regarding the Status and Incidents of Homosexual Marriages
Following Hawaii's Baehr V. Lewin." University of Louisville
Journal of Family Law. 32:551.
Herdt, Gilbert (ed.)
1993
Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia. University of California
Berkeley Press.
Herek, Gregory
1991
"Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research." Law & Sexuality. Summer:1:133.
Herscher, Elaine
1995
"When Marriage Is a Tough Proposal: Women's Suit at Heart of
Debate Over Same-Sex Unions." San Francisco Chronicle.
May 15:1.
Hilderbrand, Kelly
1994
"Making marriage stronger." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Nov 1:A14.
Hochberg, James
1995
"Is same-sex marriage a right? Gays forcing state to sanction
their behavior." The Honolulu Advertiser. Nov 26:B-3. (See also
K. Gomes.)
Hohengarten, William M.
1994
"Same-Sex Marriage and the Right to Privacy." The Yale Law
Journal. Apr:103:1495.
297
Homer, Steven K.
"Against Marriage." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Journal.
29:2:505.
Hosek, Linda
1994a
"HVB chairman hit for his testimony." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Feb 3:A6.
1994b
"Hearing draws much testimony." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Feb 3:A6.
1994c
"Poll: Unions for gays won't hurt isle image." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Feb 3:A1.
1994d
"House says no to same-sex marriages." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Feb 4.
1994e
"Senate may try amendment to stop same sex marriages."
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Feb 9.
1994f
"Tom vows to kill bill on 'domestic partnerships'." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Feb 18.
1994g
"Graulty to focus on couples' benefits." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Mar 30.
1994h
"Graulty wants the courts to leave social policy to lawmakers."
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Apr 6.
1994i
"Senate wants same-sex bill left untouched." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Apr 8.
1994j
"Senate votes: Marriage for heterosexuals only." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Apr 13.
1994k
"Legislators likely to ban homosexual marriages." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Apr 23.
19941
"House crushes same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Apr 27.
1995
"Same-sex marriage trial dismissal urged." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Jul 6:A-5.
298
Hovermill, Joseph
994
"A Conflict of Laws and Morals: The Choice of Law Implications of
Hawaii's Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages." Maryland Law
Review. 53:450.
Hunter, Nan
1991
"Marriage, Law, and Gender: A Feminist Legal Inquiry." Law &
Sexuality. 1:9.
Hunter, Nan; Michaelson, Sherryl; and Stoddard, Thomas Stoddard, of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU)
1992
The Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men: The Basic ACLU Guide to a
Gay Person's Rights. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press,
3rd ed.
Hunter et al. V. Romer. Case No. 92CV 7223, District Court, City and County of Denver
County, Colorado.
No date
Affidavit of Charles W. Socarides, M.D. Rebuttal Affidavit of
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
ngrassia, Lawrence
1994
"Danes Don't Debate Same-Sex Marriages, They Celebrate Them,
Even Opponents Say '89 Law Resulted in No Social Ills; Adoption
Remains an Issue." Wall Street Journal. June 8:A1.
international Gay and Lesbian Association (ILGA)
1984
The First Pink Book.
1988
The Second Pink Book.
,
Jefferson, David J.
"Family Matters: Gay Employees Win Benefits for Partners at
More Corporations; Cost is Less than Expected, But Customer
Relation Worries Some Executives." Wall Street Journal.
Mar 18:A1.
Jenny, Carole; Thomas Roesler, and Kimberly Poyer
1994
"Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?"
Pediatrics. 94:1:41.
299
Johnson, Kirk
1994
"Gay Divorce: Few Markers In This Realm." New York Times. Aug
12:A20.
Kame eleihiwa, Lilikala
1992
Native Land and Foreign Desires: How Shall We Live in Harmony?
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Keane, Thomas
1995
"Aloha, Marriage? Constitutional and Choice-of-Law Arguments
for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages." Stanford Law Review.
47:499.
Keen, Lisa
1995
"Big names, big numbers, and big news." Washington Blade.
Oct 27.
King, J. Russell
1983
"Island Town Weathers Storm in Mayoral Race." The New York
Times. Nov 11:A18.
Knight, Robert
No date
"How Domestic Partnerships and 'Gay Marriage' Threaten the
Family." Insights. Family Research Council, 700 13th St., N.W.,
Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005.
Kobayashi, Ken
1994
"Legislature, courts mired in battle of gay marriage." The
Honolulu Advertiser. June 20:A1.
Koppelman, Andrew
1988
"The Miscegenation Analogy: Sodomy Law as Sex
Discrimination." Yale Law Journal. 98:45
1994
"Why Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex
Discrimination." New York University Law Review. 69:197.
Kozuma, Scott K.
1994
"Baehr V. Lewin and Same-sex marriage: The Continued Struggle
for Social, Political and Human Legitimacy." Willamette Law
Review. 30:4:891.
300
tresnak, William
995
"Same-sex comments sought." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Nov 23:A-3.
.au. Cori
993
"Gender Equality: Should Same-Sex Couples be Allowed to
Marry?" in Roth, Randall (ed.). The Price of Paradise, Volume II.
Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
-aw, Sylvia
:988
"Homosexuality and the Social Meaning of Gender." Wisconsin
Law Review. 1988:187.
7
Lederer, Edith
1995
"Women's forum adopts platform based on family." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Sep 15:A2.
LeMoyne, James
1990
"Hard-Hit Key West Combats AIDS With Community Effort." The
New York Times. Sep 3:8.
Leo, John
1993
"Gay rights, gay marriages." U.S. News & World Report.
May 24:19.
Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service
1993
"The Bride Wore Pink: Legal Recognition of Our Relationships."
Australasian Gay and lesbian Law Journal. 3:67.
Levy, Robert
1968
"Tahiti Observed: Early European Impressions of Tahitian
Personal Style." Journal of the Polynesian Society. 77:1:33.
:
Lewis, Claudia
1988
"From This Day Forward: A Feminine Moral Discourse on
Homosexual Marriage." Yale Law Journal. 97:1783.
Liebman, Marvin
1995
"The Issue Is Gay Marriage." The Texas Triangle. Jan 13:8.
301
Link, David
"Marriage Wars." To be published soon in Reason
Lohse, Deborah
1994
"Unmarried Couples Can Face Tricky Financial Planning." Wall
Street Journal. Mar 30:C1.
Lotozo, Eils
1995
"Holy Matrimony!" Philadelphia Weekly. June 21:30.
Mackenzie, Robin
1993
"Transsexuals" Legal Sexual Status and Same Sex Marriage in
New Zealand." Otago [NZ] Law Review. 7:556.
Magnuson, Roger J.
1989
"Civil Rights and Sexual Deviance: The Public Policy Implications
of the Gay Rights Movement." Hamline Journal of Public Law and
Policy. 9:2:217.
Magnuson, Rojer J.
1994
Informed Answers to Gay Rights Questions. Multnomah Graphics,
Sisters Oregon.
Maltz, Earl M.
1992
"Constitutional Protection for the Right to Marry: a Dissenting
View." George Washington Law Review. 60:949.
Mandell, Jonathan
1995
"Gay Partners Look Forward to Marriage." New York Newsday.
June 23:A8.
Marco, Tony
No date
"The Homosexual Deception: Making Sin a Civil Right. An
Analysis in two parts." Concerned Women for America, 370
L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024,
(202) 488-7000; 1992, 55 pgs.
Marcosson, Samuel
1995
"The 'Special Rights' Canard in the Debate Over Lesbian and Gay
Right". Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. 9:137.
302
Marks, Robert
993
Letter to the editor. The Honolulu Advertiser. June 29:A7.
Mastro, David
: 994
"Gay Marriage: promoting family and values." The Daily lowan.
Mar 14.
Matsunaga, Matthew; Levin, Andrew; Kobayashi, Bertrand
1994
"Why we oppose bill denying gays right to marry." View Point,
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Apr 11.
r
Mawyer, Martin
1995
"Same-sex marriage: Nation watches Hawaii case: (Con) Marriage
pointless without children." The Honolulu Advertiser. Oct 1:B1.
[See also Tafel article for Pro.]
McGivern V. Waihee
1994-1995
First Amended Complaint; Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order; Defendant's Answers to First Amended Complaint; Order
Granting in Part...; etc. (U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii, Civ. No. 94-090843 HMF.)
Meilaender, Gilbert
1994
"On Brining One's Life to a Point." First Things. Nov:31.
Miller, Angela S. (Associated Press)
1995
"Bill creating sexual orientation commission sent to House floor."
The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 25:A-4.
Moberly, Elizabeth
2
No date
"Development and Treatment of Homosexuality." 1 pg.
Mohr, Richard B.
1994
A More Perfect Union. Boston: Beacon Press.
1995
"The Case for Gay Marriage." Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics
& Public Policy. 9:301.
303
Morgan, Shaughn
1993
"Legal Recognition of Gay and Lesbian Relationships." Gay and
Lesbian Australasian Law Journal. 3:57.
Morris, Robert
1992
"Same-Sex Friendships in Hawaiian Lore: Constructing the
Canon." In Murray, Stephen. Oceanic Homosexualities New
York: Garland Publishing.
Muranaka, Gwen
1994
"California's domestic partners bill vetoed." Pacific Citizen.
Sep:1.
Murphy, Elizabeth
1993
"The Rise of Employer-Provided Benefits for Domestic Partners."
The City of West Hollywood.
Murray, Charles
1993
"The Coming White Underclass." The Wall Street Journal.
Oct 29.
Murray, David
1994
"Every society is threatened by the disappearance of legitimate
marriage." The Chronicle of Higher Education. Jul 13:B5.
Murray, David W.
1994
"Poor Suffering Bastards, An Anthropologist Looks at
Illegitimacy." Policy Review. Spring:9.
Murray, Stephen (ed.)
1992
Oceanic Homosexualities. New York: Garland Publishing.
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
1994
"New Techniques in the Treatment of Homosexuality." Collected
papers from the NARTH Annual Spring Conference, May 22,
NARTH, 16542 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 416, Encino, CA 91436,
(818) 789-4440.
Nava, Michael, and Robert Dawdidoff
1994
Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. New York: St.
Martin Press.
304
less. Carol
995
"Lesbian Couple Leads Fight for Right to Marry" San Francisco
Examiner. Apr 27:A1.
Vicolsi, Joseph (ed.)
992
NARTH Newsletter. Dec.
1993a
NARTH Newsletter. Mar.
1993b
NARTH Bulletin. July
1994a
NARTH Bulletin. Mar.
1994b
NARTH Bulletin. Sep.
1994c
NARTH Bulletin. Dec.
1995a
NARTH Bulletin. Apr.
1995b
NARTH Bulletin. Sep.
1995c
NARTH Statement of Policy and Membership Application. Sep.
Nielsen, Linda
1990
"Family Rights and the 'Registered Partnership' in Denmark."
International Journal of Law and the Family. 4:297.
No Author
1991a
"Same Sex Marriage." The Gay Community News. Aug.
1991b
"Costa Rica." The Gay Community News. May.
1993a
"Workplace Diversity: Gays Confront 'Lavender Ceiling'." Los
Angeles Times. May 17.
&
1993b
"Chromosomal Differences in Gays?". Family Research Report.
Family Research Institute, July-Aug:1.
1993c
"Symposium on Sexual Orientation and the Law"
Virginia Law Review. Oct:79:7.
1993d
"Sex partners with AIDS prosecuted." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Dec 13:A12.
305
1993e
"Gay men give up on safe sex." New York Times. Reprinted in
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Dec 13:A12.
1993f
"Non-Traditional Family Values: Providing Quasi-Marital Rights to
Same-Sex Couples." Boston College Third World Law Journal.
13:317.
1994a
"Same-sex marriage." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 2.
1994b
"Same-sex marriage ban on track." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb
4:A10.
1994c
"State should drop ban on same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Feb 4.
1994d
"House OK's same-sex marriage ban." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Feb 5.
1994e
"Same sex unions." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 6.
1994f
"Same-sex marriage suit put on hold." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Feb
10
1994g
"Same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Feb 17.
1994h
"Homosexuals to picket HVB chief's workplace." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Feb 18.
1994i
"Same-sex marriage." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 21.
1994j
"State AG opposes bill on domestic partners." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Feb 21.
1994k
"Group: Gay-wed issues sparked Graulty threats." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Feb 22:D8.
1994I
"Same-sex unions." The Honolulu Advertiser. Apr 1.
1994m
"Same-sex marriage." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Apr 4.
1994n
"Same-sex unions." The Honolulu Advertiser. Apr 26.
306
1994o
"Same-sex marriage ban won't settle issue." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Apr 27.
1994p
"Arizona marriage law upheld." The Honolulu Advertiser. May
27:E3.
1994q
"Homosexual Attempting to Restructure Society." Reality, Real
Women of Canada. May/June:1.
1994Γ
"Sweden allows same-sex marriages." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
June 7:A1.
1994s
"Favorable ruling would rock nation." The Honolulu Advertiser.
June 20:A2.
1994t
"Suit on Domestic Partnership; Formation of study commission
called unconstitutional." The Honolulu Advertiser. Nov 11:A-3.
1994v
"Friends or Lovers? Book Review of Boswell's Same Sex Unions
in Premodem Europe. Christianity Today. Dec 12:46.
1995a
"Same-Sex Again." The Honolulu Advertiser. Jul 9.
1995b
"Some same-sex pairs get benefits in Canada." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Nov 26.
No date
"Five Hawaii Polls on Legalizing Same-Sex 'Marriage'.'
No date
"General Quotations." Distributed by Forum On the Right to
Marriage (FORM), 22 Chelsea Street, Boston, MA 02128, (617)-
569-9733, 4 pages.
No date
"Legal Quotations." Distributed by Forum on the Right to
Marriage (FORM), 22 Chelsea Street, Boston, MA 02128, (617)-
569-9733, 14 pages.
No date
"Same-Sex Marriage Law." Distributed by Forum on the Right to
Marriage (FORM), 22 Chelsea Street, Boston, MA 02128, (617)-
569-9733, 7 pages.
307
Novick, Sherry with Joan Walsh, and Elaine Zimmerman
1989
"Planning a Family Policy for California; First Year Report of the
Joint Select Task Force on the Changing Family." Reprinted by
Family Diversity Project. P.O. Box 65756, Los Angeles, CA 90065,
June.
Oliver, Brooke
1993
"Contracting for Cohabitation: Adapting the California Statutory
Marriage Contract to Life Partnership Agreements Between
Lesbian, Gay or Unmarried Heterosexual Couples." Golden Gate
University Law Review. 23:899.
Osborn, Nick
1995
"Married - But Not Legal." The Texas Triangle. Apr 27:15.
Ortiz, Daniel
1993
"Creating Controversy: Essentialism and Constructivism and the
Politics of Gay Identity." Virginia Law Review. 79:7:1833.
0 manczyk, Edmund Jan
1990
"Appendix, United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human
Rights." Encyclopedia of the United Nations & International
Relations. 2d ed., Taylor & Francis, New York, pgs. 402-405.
Patterson, Charlotte
1992
"Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents." Child Development. p.
1025.
Pederson
1991-92
"Denmark: Homosexual Marriages and New Rules Regarding
Separation and Divorce." Journal of Family Law. 30:289.
Pinkerton, James
1993
"A Conservative Argument for Gay Marriage." Los Angeles Times.
June 39:B7.
Polikoff, Nancy
1993
"We Will Get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay & Lesbian
Marriage Will Not 'Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in
Every Marriage'." Virginia Law Review. 79:1535.
308
Prager, Dennis
1993
"Judaism's Sexual Revolution." Crisis. Sep:29.
Price, Deb
1993
"Who's being unreasonable?" The Honolulu Advertiser. Nov 16.
Ramsey Colloquium
-
1994a
"Morality and Homosexuality." The Wall Street Journal. Feb 24.
1994b
"The Homosexuality Movement." First Things. Mar: 15.
Rauch, Jonathan
1994
"A Pro-Gay, Pro-Family Policy." The Wall Street Journal. Nov
29:A22.
Remafedi, Gary (ed.)
1994
Death by Denial: Studies of suicide in gay and lesbian teenagers.
Alyson Publications, Inc., Boston, MA.
Reske, Henry J.
1993
"Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional? Hawaii Supreme Court
Thinks So, Unless State Can Show Compelling Interest." ABA
Journal. Jul:28.
Reuters Editors
1994
"Sweden allows same-sex marriages." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
June 7:A1.
Reynolds, Philip Lyndon
1995
"Same-Sex Unions: What Boswell Didn't Find." Christian
Century. Jan 19:49.
Rosegg, Peter
1994a
"Same-sex marriages on rocks if bill passes." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Feb 2.
1994b
"Gay-wed bill: can it be upheld?" The Honolulu Advertiser.
Feb 5:A1.
1994c
"Same-sex amendment gaining." The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 9.
1994d
"Gay-marriage furor intensifies." The Honolulu Advertiser:
Feb 12.
309
1994e
"Gays may win legal partnership." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Feb 15:A1.
1994f
"An alternative: legal domestic partnerships." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Feb 17.
1994g
"Same-sex bill divides panel." The Honolulu Advertiser. Mar 4:A8.
19945
"Same-sex issue gets more time." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Mar 5.
1994i
"Same-sex bill dies." The Honolulu Advertiser. Mar 30:A1.
1994j
"Sighs of relief on 'same-sex' issue." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Mar 30:A8.
1994k
"Move to kill bill on same-sex unions greeted with cheers." The
Honolulu Advertiser. Mar 31.
19941
"Reed fails to bring same-sex bill to vote." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Apr 1.
1994m
"Same-sex bill still locked in." The Honolulu Advertiser. Apr 5.
1994n
"Same-sex bill revision aimed to end impasse." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Apr 6:A1.
1994o
"Same-sex bill heads for vote in Senate." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Apr 7.
1994p
"Differences noted in same-sex bills." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Apr 10.
1994q
"Same-sex ban is approved." The Honolulu Advertiser. Apr 13.
1994Γ
"State poised to ban same-sex marriages." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Apr 23:A1.
1994s
"Marriage bill goes to Waihee." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Apr 26:A1.
310
994t
"State's panel on same-sex partnerships is legal limbo." The
Honolulu Advertiser. Oct 13:A13.
Rotello, Gabriel
994a
"Legalizing gay marriage in Hawaii could touch off 'fatal'
backlash." The Honolulu Advertiser (reprinted from New York
Newsday). Apr 24.
994b
"Waikiki Wedding bells ring alarm." Island Lifestyle. June: 10
995
"Confederate Echoes in New Gay Laws." New York Newsday.
Feb 16:A36.
Sage, Candace
994
"Sister-State Recognition of Valid Same-Sex Marriages: Baehr V.
Lewin - How Will It Play in Peoria?" Indiana Law Review. 28:115.
Sanburn, Curt
1993
"The Aikane Tradition: Homosexuality in Old Hawaii." Honolulu
Weekly. May 12:4.
Savada, Alan J.
No date
"Hawaiian Campaign." Washington Blade.
Schaffer, Bob
"Should states prevent discrimination against gays?"
Point/Counterpoint." State Government News. Feb:30 (see also
Hambley).
Scruton, Roger
1991
"Sexual Morality, Homosexuality and the Liberal Consensus." The
World &1. Feb:565.
Shaw III, Floyd
1994
"Homosexuals can change." The Honolulu Advertiser. May 16.
Shubart, Ellen
1993
"Cities offer insurance to employees' partners." City & State.
Sep 13.
311
Signorile, Michelangelo
1994
"Bridal Wave." Out. Dec/Jan.
1995
"Wedding Bell Blues." Out Magazine. May:26.
Silver, Diane
1995
"I Claim the Title of Widow." Ms. Sep/Oct:96.
Smith, Ph.D., Phillip Colton
No date
"Homosexuality." Paper with Curriculum vitae (selected)
attached.
Snee, Thomas
1994
"Criticism and Analysis of the Alberta Human Rights
Commission's Review, Equal in Dignity and Rights as it Examines
'Sexual Orientation'." Aug.
Sobran, Jr., M.J.
1975
"Sanity and the Sexes. Book Review of Naked Nomads;
Unmarried Men in America by George Gilder." National Review.
May 9:517.
Socarides, M.D., Charles
1992
"Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of
Homosexuality." The Journal of Psychohistory. 10:3:307.
1994
"Roundtable on Homosexuality." Distributed by Orthodox
Christian Association of Medicine, Psychology and Religion, P.O.
Box 958, Cambridge, MA 02238, (617) 868-6557.
1995
Homosexuality, A Freedom to Far. Phoenix: Adam Margrave
Books.
Stanton, Glenn T., M.A.
1994
"Married, With Children?". Christianity Today. Nov 14:21.
1995
"'Only a Piece of Paper' The Social Significance of the Marriage
License and the Consequences of Cohabitation, Divorce and
Stepfamilies." A research report originally published by Focus on
the Family, 8605 Explorer Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80920,
(719) 531-3400, Aug.
312
Stauffer, Bob
993
"Let Us Thank Those Who Helped." Island Lifestyle.
:994
"Bible Citations on Same-Gender Marriage." Mss. Madison
Society of Hawaii.
Stewart, Jeff
1995
"The Wedding Luau - Who Is Invited? Hawaii, Same-Sex
Marriage, and Emerging Realities." Emory Law Journal. Fall.
(forthcoming)
Stoeson, Lyn
1994
"Legal Activist: Gay Marriage is Coming." The Washington Blade.
Dec 9:16.
Strasser, Mark
1991
"Family, Definitions, and the Constitution on the Anti-
Miscegenation Analogy." Suffolk Law Review. 25:981.
Sullivan, Andrew
1989
"Here Comes the Groom." The New Republic. Aug:20.
1995
Virtually Normal. New York: Knopf.
Suris, Osca
1995
"Saugatuck Attracts Many Gay Tourists, But There is Friction."
The Wall Street Journal. Aug 22.
Tafel, Richard
1995
"Same-sex marriage: Nation watches Hawaii case: (Pro) Gay
Marriage would validate relationship." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Oct 1:B1.
Tanahara, Kris M.
1994
"Much work ahead, gay leader says." The Honolulu Advertiser.
June 20:A3.
Tangonan, Shannon
1995
"State appeals same-sex marriage." The Honolulu Advertiser.
July 6:A-3.
Tax Foundation of Hawaii
1994
"The Tax Burden of the Arnie Aloha Family." April.
313
Tempest, Rone
1995
Sexual orientation issue fails." The Honolulu Advertiser.
Sep 15:A1.
Thomas, Cal
1993
"Homosexual gains damage nation's morals." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Mar 5.
Thornton, Arland
1994
"Comparative and Historical Perspectives on Marriage, Divorce
and Family Life." Utah Law Review. 1994:2:587.
Tom, Terrance
1993
"Couples don't need a license to be in love." The Honolulu
Advertiser. Dec 12.
Toulon, Erik
1993
"Call the Caterer: Hawaii to Host First Same-Sex Marriages."
Southern California Review of Law & Women's Studies. 3:109.
Tucker, William
1993
"Monogamy and its Discontents." National Review. Oct 4:28.
Tully, Carol
1994
"To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before: The Legalization
of Lesbian and Gay Marriages." Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Service. 1:73.
Verhovek, Sam Howe
1994
"Texas Capital Ends Benefits For Partners." New York Times.
May 19:A8.
von Wiegandt, Patrick
1994
"Same-sex marriage: A misguided idea, View Point." Honolulu
Star-Bulletin. Apr 12.
Voth M.D., Harold, M.
1978
"The Family and the Future of America." Alabama Journal of
Medical Sciences. 15:3:310.
1980
"The Future of America." Military Medicine. 145:3:169.
314
Wagatsuma, Wade
1993
"Don't give homosexuals special rights." Kaleo. Nov 30:4.
Watson, Traci and Shapiro, Joseph P. with Impoco, Jim and Ito, Timothy M. Ito
1995
"Is there a 'gay gene'?" U.S. News & World Report. Nov 13:93.
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe
1993
"Dan Quayle Was Right." Atlantic Monthly. Apr:47.
Whitney, Sharon G.
1994
"Sexual Values and Constitutional Law: Discrimination Against
Homosexuality." Comparative State Politics. 15:1:14.
Wickham, DeWayne
1992
"Legalizing unmarired couples is a mistake." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Mar 23.
Williams, Walter
No date
"Socia! Acceptance of Same-Sex Marriages: Models from Other
Cultures." Paper presented to the American Anthropological
Association.
Wolfson, Evan
1991
"Civil Rights, Human Rights, Gay Rights: Minorities and the
Humanity of the Different." Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Policy. 14:21.
1994a
"Crossing the Threshold: Equal Marriage Rights for Lesbians and
Gay Men, and the Intra Community Critique." New York University
Review of Law & Social Change. 21:567.
1994b
"No Time For A Luau." The Advocate. July 26:5.
1995a
"Hawaii Honeymoon." Men's Style. May/June:114.
1995b
"Altared States." 19 Percent. May/June:28.
1996
"Why We Should Fight for the Freedom to Marry." Journal of Gay,
Lesbian & Bisexual Identity. Jan (forthcoming).
315
Wrenn, Sabrina M.
1988
"Labor Relations: Gay Rights and Workplace Discrimination."
Personnel Journal. Oct:91.
Wright, David
1994
"Do You Take This Man..., Book Review of Boswell's, Same-Sex
Unions in Premodem Europe." National Review. Aug 29:59.
Wright, Walter
1994
"HVB official says gay marriage would scare away some tourists."
The Honolulu Advertiser. Feb 3.
Wyman, Jr., Hastings
No date
"When the love boat sails for Honolulu." The Washington Blade.
Yancy, Philip
1994
"The Lost Sex Study." Christianity Today. Dec 12:80.
Yuen, Mike
1994a
"Senate panel to mull ban on gay marriage." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Mar 11:A13.
1994b
"Senator rejects blame for marriage ad." Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Mar 31.
1994c
"Senate blocks Reed on bill to ban gay marriages." Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. Apr 5.
1994d
"Reed's tactics upset GOP's Koki." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Apr 6.
316