Hawaii Supreme Court Case Analysis

Using the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision can count as a satisfactory point in which the law to discuss became into being. While the history goes back much farther in this case, prior to 1991, the final decision by the court begins in 1993, where they found it unconstitutional for the state of Hawaii to deny same-sex couples the right to marry (Baehr v. Lewin, 1993). In this instance, the Hawaii Supreme Court relied on a perspective of equal protection, rather than due process, to justify their decision in this matter. Shortly thereafter, the case is remanded to the trial court, to allow the state time and an opportunity to establish its reasons as to why they can deny same-sex couples marriage licenses, which the state delayed until 1996 …show more content…
Constitution, same-sex couples have the same rights and benefits in regards to marriage as any other couple. Additionally, there are continual challenges to these rules, such as the case of the Alabama Supreme Court, keeping both sides of this issue active in defense of their views. As promised, the question remains as to which side of this argument I may fall in line with. On one hand, you have people/groups that want to keep traditional religious and family values intact by reinstating DOMA, on the other, you have people/groups that say this law violates an individual’s basic rights. It is my opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court got it right, no matter an individual’s preferences, they should be guaranteed equal rights as any other individual. Further, anything that may deny another person basic human rights based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, age, etc. should be abolished and/or quashed at any given opportunity, never allowing it to take root. While I could cite numerous case laws, articles, events that would support my position, I do not have to because our past, our present, and our future is all I require. Repeatedly, unjust, and unfair practices have been met with a shift in public opinion through continual perseverance. Understandably, those who oppose another’s’ access to rights, do so from a point of precedent and tradition, in this case, strong traditional family values, and Judeo-Christian values. As always, though, these strong traditional positions are only because one fears the future or is hesitant to relinquish their position of power. The truth is a tradition is not a constant…times change, and we change with them, redefining what tradition