Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1:11-cv-00734 #43

1:11-cv-00734 #43

Ratings: (0)|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #43 - ORDER granting Hawaii Family Forum's motion to intervene.
Doc #43 - ORDER granting Hawaii Family Forum's motion to intervene.

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on May 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/16/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII NATASHA N. JACKSON, JANIN KLEID,and GARY BRADLEY,Plaintiffs,v. NEIL S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor,State of Hawaii, and LORETTA J.FUDDY, Director of Health, Stateof Hawaii,Defendants. ))))))))))))))Civ. No. 11-00734 ACK-KSCORDER GRANTING HAWAII FAMILY FORUM’S MOTION TO INTERVENEPROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Natasha N. Jackson andJanin Kleid filed suit against Hawaii Governor Neil S.Abercrombie and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Hawaii’s Departmentof Health (“Defendants”). Doc. No. 1. On January 27, 2012,Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), addingGary Bradley as a plaintiff and expanding Plaintiffs’ claims.Doc. No. 6. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge Hawaii RevisedStatutes (“H.R.S.”) § 572-1, which states that a valid marriagecontract shall be only between a man and woman, and Article I,Section 23 of the Hawaii Constitution (the “marriage amendment”),which provides that “[t]he legislature shall have the power toreserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Plaintiffs assert
Case 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/02/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #:762
 
2that these two laws violate the Equal Protection and Due ProcessClauses of the United States Constitution. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 94-104.On February 21, 2012, Defendants filed separate answersto the Amended Complaint. Doc. Nos. 9-10. In his answer,Defendant Abercrombie stated that he “admits that to the extentHRS § 572-1 allows opposite sex couples, but not same sexcouples, to get married, it violates the Due Process Clause andEqual Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.” Doc.No. 9 (“Abercrombie’s Answer”), at 2. In Defendant Fuddy’sanswer, she denies that § 572-1 and the marriage amendmentviolate the Constitution. Doc. No. 10 (“Fuddy’s Answer”), at 6-7.On March 1, 2012, Hawaii Family Forum (“HFF”) filed amotion to intervene as a defendant (“HFF’s Motion”). Doc. No.15. HFF also filed a proposed answer denying that Hawaii’smarriage laws are unconstitutional. Doc. No. 16. On April 9,2012, Defendant Fuddy filed a memorandum in support of HFF’sMotion (“Fuddy’s Mem.”). Doc. No. 23. Also on April 9, 2012,Plaintiffs and Defendant Abercrombie filed memoranda inopposition to HFF’s Motion (“Pls.’ Opp’n” and “Abercrombie’sOpp’n,” respectively). Doc. Nos. 24, 27. Plaintiffs also fileda request that the Court take judicial notice of several exhibits
Case 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/02/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #:763
 
1/
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.
2/
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.
1/
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.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2/
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->