Hawaii passes constitutional amendment banning gay marriages

Thursday, November 19, 1998

Hawaii passes constitutional amendment banning gay marriages

LEGISLATION: New state amendment leaves gay unions
unrecognized

By Maria Paul

Daily Bruin Contributor

The Hawaii electorate overwhelmingly approved a constitutional
amendment that gives the state the right to ban same-sex marriages,
on Nov. 4.

If the amendment had been voted down, Hawaii would have become
the first place in the world to allow same-sex couples equal
marriage privileges.

Called the "trial of the century" by the Hawaii Gay Marriage
Bureau, a case has been pending since 1983 when the State Supreme
Court declared that the state was violating its constitution by
denying marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

Since then, the court has procrastinated in ruling on the issue,
calling for more debate.

Yet, it was unlikely that same-sex marriage in Hawaii could have
been legitimized, since it was opposed by the majority of those who
run Hawaii’s powerful Democratic government. Gov. Ben Cayetano told
Time magazine that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legal in the same
way that "marrying your sister" shouldn’t be legal.

Some UCLA students and professors criticize the governor’s
response as well as the amendment for being discriminatory.

Dr. Ronni Sanlo, Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgendered Campus Resource Center, denounced the comparison of
same-sex relationships to incest as merely bigotry.

Larry Lawrenze, co-founder of UCLA’s gay fraternity Delta Lambda
Phi, agreed, saying he considers the law that limits a person to
marrying only a member of the opposite sex as "still
discriminatory."

In Hawaii, Sanlo said "gay couples are denied all things that
opposite-sex couples take for granted," such as the status of "next
of kin," which allows the surviving partner to claim the body of
the deceased, in case of death.

However, opponents to the legalization of same-sex marriage
focus on possible detriment to the children raised by same-sex
couples.

Hawaii proponents of the amendment ran an ad that featured a
confused looking 8-year-old reading aloud from "Daddy’s Wedding," a
book designed to educate children about gay relationships. These
ads embody the view that "gay couples are unable to successfully
raise children," according to the governor.

Sanlo also points out that the marriage privilege, the "special
right granted to heterosexuals," does not rest solely on the issue
of child-rearing. Marriage involves the rite of passage that allows
a couple to "publicly announce their love," Lawrenze said.

The ads for "Save Traditional Marriage" were "stupidly
discriminatory," in Sanlo’s words. In fact, children with gay
parents are found to be significantly more tolerant of differences,
she said.

It is precisely the lack of tolerance that Littleton holds
responsible for the approval of the amendment, saying that "the
only reason to ban same-sex marriage is prejudice."

However, same-sex marriage advocates have lost what Time has
called the "most important on-the-ground political battle fought in
centuries."

Moreover, in California, opponents of same-sex marriage have
qualified a "Definition of Marriage" initiative for the March 2000
primary election ballot.

If approved by voters, the measure would clarify that only
male-female marriage is valid or recognized in California.

Sanlo, however, classifies the gay-rights struggle as a battle
between education and ignorance, saying that every year people
become more involved and thus more tolerant.

She said that she believes that "somewhere, sooner or later,
although perhaps not in our lifetime, same-sex marriage is bound to
become legal."

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]