FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 4, 1998

Hawaii and Alaska Voters Approve Constitutional Amendments

Authorizing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples in Civil Marriage

Voters in Hawaii and Alaska yesterday approved constitutional amendments authorizing those states to limit state-sponsored marriage to different-sex couples only. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a founding member of the National Freedom to Marry Coalition and co-counsel in a freedom to marry case in Vermont, vowed to press on until this fundamental freedom is available to all Americans, gay and non-gay. The Vermont case, Baker v. State, is scheduled for argument before the Vermont Supreme Court later this month.

“Obviously we’re disappointed that so many voters were persuaded to take the extreme step of amending their state constitutions—the very document which guarantees rights and liberties—for the purpose of discriminating against same-sex couples,” stated Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Director. “But we also know that we are in a long-term civil rights struggle. There are no advances without setbacks. This vote was a setback, not a defeat. We will ultimately persuade the majority of fair-minded Americans that allowing same-sex couples to undertake the responsibilities, obligations and protections of civil marriage is not only right but good.”

The ballot measures arose in response to favorable rulings on marriage in Hawaii and Alaska courts. In a case involving three same-sex couples, Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the State’s requirement that marriages be of different sex participants restricted the choice of marital partner based on sex. The Hawaii court held that sex discrimination in marriage, like race discrimination, is constitutionally impermissible absent a compelling state interest. In late 1996, after a trial on the State’s reasons for requiring marriages to be between different sex couples, a Circuit Court Judge ruled the State could not justify its discrimination. The case is awaiting decision in the Hawaii Supreme Court, which has the final word.

Alaska’s courts were not as far along as Hawaii’s. In March, 1998, a trial court judge agreed with a male couple who have been together over 20 years that the choice of who to marry is fundamental and should not be interfered with by the state absent a compelling justification. A trial on the state’s justifications has not yet been scheduled.

“It was, unfortunately, no great surprise to find that an election which put the majority in the position of deciding rights for a minority worked to the disadvantage of the minority,” commented Jennifer Levi, staff attorney at GLAD. “Before these votes, Hawaii’s and Alaska’s courts recognized that it is wrong to deny any American equality under the law. Despite this heartbreaking setback, that day will come again.”

In an election that gives some insight into the repercussions of placing civil rights up to a vote, 400f voters in South Carolina yesterday approved of retaining language in the state’s constitution that bans interracial marriage. The vote is particularly telling in that the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared interracial bans to be unconstitutional over 32 years ago.

The Hawaii and Alaska ballot measures change the immediate forecast of events. Hawaii’s amendment does not directly prohibit marriages of same-sex couples, but, assuming the court withholds a ruling, returns the issue to the legislature. In Alaska, the amendment directly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

GLAD is New England’s public interest legal organization which brings test cases and conducts public education about securing equal justice under law for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and people living with HIV and AIDS.