3State of Hawaii,” where the “orchestrated legal assault being waged againsttraditional heterosexual marriage by gay rights groups and their lawyers” waspoised to achieve “its greatest breakthrough.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 2-4(1996),
1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905-23 (hereinafter the “House Report” or“Report”).The “breakthrough” alluded to in the Report was the Hawaii SupremeCourt’s ruling in
Baehr v. Lewin
, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), which allowedfor the possibility that a Hawaii Revised Statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. §572-1 (1985),which set forth the “[r]equisites of valid marriage contract” and limited state-sanctioned marriages to relationships “between a man and a woman” would bestruck down as unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection clause of theHawaii Constitution. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that “on its face and [. . . ]as applied, HRS §572-1 denies same-sex couples access to the marital status andits concomitant rights and benefits.”
, 74 Haw. at 564. The
Courtfurther recognized “sex” as a suspect category for purposes of Equal Protectionanalysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Hawaii Constitution, mandatingsatisfaction of strict scrutiny analysis, the most rigorous form of constitutionalinquiry, in order to withstand challenge to its constitutionality under the HawaiiConstitution.
. at 580. Concerned by this apparent willingness by judges inHawaii “to foist the newly-coined institution of homosexual ‘marriage’ upon anunwilling Hawaiian public,” and the “possibility that other States could, throughthe protracted and complex process of litigation, be forced to follow suit,”Congress, through DOMA, endeavored to enact a federal definition of marriage,
Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 116 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 104