Skip to main content

View Diary: Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie signs marriage equality law (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is there some backstory to amendment language? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skrekk

    Because if that was supposed to be a proper anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment, the drafting is incredibly shoddy.  All it does is give the legislature the power to legislate in that area; while that does fend off court challenges under the state constitution, I would have thought one of the other important functions of such an amendment would be to make legislative repeal more difficult as well.

    •  The amendment was the first of its kind (0+ / 0-)

      It was passed in response to the Hawai'i Supreme Court's 1993 ruling that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying was a violation of the state Constitution.

      I would suspect that the amendment was crafted in a rather narrow fashion, specifically to keep the state's Supreme Court from having its decision from being carried out and preventing the court from issuing an additional ruling on the subject. In a certain sense it evidences a time prior to the real revving-up of the anti-marriage-equality machine. I would assume that the wording was intended to make the amendment more palatable who were on the fence by limiting its reach. That would go at least some way to explaining the amendment's rather contorted ruling. I also presume that the people who got the amendment passed assumed that the state legislature would NEVER pass a bill allowing for marriage equality.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site