Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of elevenexhibits that they assert are copies of documents produced ormade available by government agencies as public records. SeeDoc. No. 26. HFF has not opposed this request. The Court willconsider these documents for purposes of ruling on the instantmotion.
The facts as recited in this Order are for the purpose ofdisposing of the current motion and are not to be construed asfindings of fact that the parties may rely on in futureproceedings.
3attached to their opposition.
Doc. No. 26. On April 16, 2012,HFF filed a reply in support of its Motion (“HFF’s Reply”). Doc.No. 34. On April 24, 2012, HFF submitted a supplementalauthority it intended to rely on at the hearing. Doc. No. 40.On April 25, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental authorityin support of their opposition. Doc. No. 41.The Court held a hearing on HFF’s Motion on April 30,2012.
I.Same-Sex Marriage in Hawaii
In Hawaii, same-sex marriage has been the subject ofmuch litigation and legislation. In May 1991, several same-sexcouples filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that § 572-1violated the equal protection, due process, and privacycomponents of the Hawaii Constitution in so far as it had beeninterpreted and applied by the Hawaii Department of Health todeny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Baehr v. Lewin, 852P.2d 44, 48-49 (Haw. 1993). The trial judge rejected the
Case 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/02/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #:764