HAWAII'S MARRIAGE CASE, AUG. 14 Baehr vs. Lewin is the official name of Hawaii's landmark marriage case, in which Ninia Baehr is the first in alphabetical order of six plaintiffs suing the State of Hawaii for marriage licenses. Jack Lewin, as head of the State Department of Health, denied these 3 same-sex couples their licenses and denied another same-sex couple their license on June 17, 1994. Jack Lewin is now running for the Democratic party nomination for governor. In a bold bid for the gay and lesbian vote, Jack Lewin has publicly distanced himself from the case. His public letter is appended below. As Jack Lewin explains in his letter, Hawaii's Attorney General never called upon Lewin to testify in the court case. It would greatly embarrass the state, as it tries to demonstrate some ``compelling state interest'' in perpetuating sex discrimination, were the six plaintiffs to subpoena Lewin himself as a witness saying that there were no compelling state interests. It should add some levity to the April, 1995, proceedings. For newcomers to the case, the Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses is sex discrimination, subject to the same scrutiny as racial, ethnic or religious discrimination. UNLESS the state can demonstrate a compelling state interest, the licenses will be issued. The state will present its compelling state interests in April of 1995, and the courts will rule on their sufficiency after that. The closest parallel to a compelling state interest was the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, just for being of Japanese ancestry. At the time, such internment was legal---it is doubtful that any court would say so today. Politically, Jack Lewin has an uphill battle against the Lt. Governor Cayetano. Cayetano has made it clear that he thinks that ALL couples should have domestic contracts in the law, straight or gay, and that the word marriage should be left to the private use of churches. Unfortunately, federal law uses the word marriage for tax benefits, prison visitations, immigration law, etc., so Cayetano has to be a bit more clever than that. To the credit of Cayetano, he's made it respectable for Democrats to say that the law should be the same for both---many Democratic party candidates have adopted Cayetano's position (first announced last March), including Lewin himself. The Republican candidate, Patricia Saiki, famous for supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, favors a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages. At least one other major candidate would likewise ban same sex marriages by constitutional change. Discussion of constitutional change has arisen because most people, including conservatives, believe that the state will fail to present interests which are compelling enough to permit discrimination. The race for governor is therefore engaging the time and money of Hawaii's lesbian and gay community as never before. Some 43% of the registered voters say that the position on same sex marriage is the deciding factor in how they'll vote. Given the depth of the political struggle, mainland contributions to the legal fees of the court case are doubly important. Contributions may be sent to GLCC/HERMP, 1820 University Ave., Honolulu, HI 96822. Contributions to GLCC/HERMP are fully tax-deductible. Tom Ramsey Secretary, HERMP Steering Committee ramsey@math.hawaii.edu LEWIN'S LETTER Dear Editor: I would like to give notice to the gay and lesbian community on the issue of Baehr vs. Lewin. I resented having the Attorney General's office attach my name to this case without consulting me or verifying my views. I am not opposed to gay/lesbian unions. Moreover, in terms of the benefit of monogamy, such unions serve public health goals. I have a strong record of supporting the rights of gays and of non- discrimination in this regard. I was not called to testify in this case for these reasons. This issue should be decided in the courts. Whether the outcome is in the form of an expanded rights version of domestic partnership for all people [all is underlined], with marriage as a religious choice, or in the form of gay/lesbian unions, or as traditional marriage is incidental. The decision as to how to proceed with a relationship is personal and spiritual. Nonetheless, the State must no longer discriminate in terms of civil, legal, and financial rights toward gays who elect to marry or form life partnerships of whatever name. My name is attached to this case because I was Director of Health, and the Health Department issues marriage licenses. My point here is that I strongly support equal human rights. Jack Lewin