Same-Sex Marriage
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1995-11-26
Guests: Jim Hochberg (Sexual Orientation Commissioner); Kuumealoha Gomes (Sexual Orientation Commissioner); Steve Michaels (Deputy Attorney General); Dan Foley (civil rights lawyer)
Duration: 00:36:52

[00:00:05] Randall Roth: Good morning. This is Randy Roth, host of Pop Radio. We're broadcast live each Sunday morning at 8:00 on KHPR 88.1 FM and KKUA 90.7 FM. And then rebroadcast Sunday evenings at 8:00 on KIFO 1380 AM. Everyone help who helps to bring Pop Radio to you is a volunteer who believes strongly in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue. Our sponsor is the Hawaii Community Foundation, an organization that encourages grass roots efforts to build community and that administers charitable funds with efficiency and compassion.

[00:00:42] Randall Roth: Our topic today is same-sex marriage, and with me in the studio to discuss it are Dan Foley, Steve Michaels, and Scott MacCool Connie. Kuhumie Aloha Gomes is going to join us in just a few minutes. Dan Foley is a civil rights attorney, partner with the law firm of Partington and Foley, and legal director of the ACLU, at least from 1984 to 1987. He was the legal director of the ACLU. He's an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii, and he was named Islander of the Year last year by Honolulu Magazine.

[00:01:16] Randall Roth: Steve Michaels is a graduate of Harvard Law School. He's been an attorney in the Attorney General's office for 11 years. He also is an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii School of Law. He specializes in constitutional and appellate litigation. Kuhumie Aloha Gomes is the director of the Kuaona Student Services at the University of Hawaii Manoa. She's a member of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law. She worked as an assistant in the UH ethnic studies program, and her community services include Hawaii Equal Protection Rights Project, the American Friends Service Committee, and now Mamo O Hawaii, a Polynesian gay and lesbian group.

[00:01:57] Randall Roth: Scott MacCool Connie is an attorney with the law firm of Beck and Taylor. He has provided pro bono legal services for the Rutherford Institute, a non-profit civil rights organization. And also, he's provided pro bono services for the Life Foundation. Scott's from the Big Island. And then we've got on the phone another member of the commission on sexual orientation and the law, Jim Hohkberg. Jim also is an attorney with the law firm of Beck and Taylor and, like Scott, has provided pro bono legal services to the Rutherford Institute here in Hawaii.

[00:02:30] Randall Roth: According to Jim, the Rutherford Institute offers First Amendment protection to people whose religious freedoms have been, uh, threatened. Well, good morning, everybody, Dan, Steve, Scott, and on the phone, Jim, and soon to be here, Kuhumie Aloha. Good morning.

[00:02:46] Dan Foley: Good morning.

[00:02:47] Steve Michaels: Good morning.

[00:02:47] Randall Roth: Uh, why don't we begin by having Dan Foley, who is, uh, not only a civil rights lawyer, but the lawyer on the plaintiff's side in the Baehr v. Lewin case, which is the 1993 Supreme Court of Hawaii case that more or less started this ongoing conversation about same-sex marriage. Uh, Dan, you represented the three couples who were denied a license. Uh, could you give us a real brief explanation of what led up to that case and what the status of that case is right now?

[00:03:19] Dan Foley: Sure, Randy. In December of 1990, three same-sex couples went to the Department of Health and applied for a marriage license. Based on an opinion of the Attorney General at that time, Warren Price, the Director said we cannot issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, only opposite-sex couples. The three couples then retained me, we filed a suit in state circuit court alleging that this denial of the marriage license violated the couple's right to privacy and equal protection. The lower court, Robert Klein, that time denied our complaint, dismissed it, and we appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

[00:03:59] Dan Foley: In May of 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that to deny a same-sex couple a marriage license is sex discrimination under the Hawaii Constitution, and that unless the state can demonstrate a compelling state interest, the licenses should issue.

[00:04:17] Randall Roth: Dan, was that a, a unanimous opinion?

[00:04:20] Dan Foley: No, there were two opinions. There was one on, uh, May 5 of 1993. It was a plurality opinion written by Judge Levinson, concurred by Judge Moon, with a, uh, no, joined by Judge Moon, with a concurring opinion by Judge Burns and a dissent by Judge Heen. Only four judges were sitting, one had retired, Judge Hayashi. And ba, following a Attorney General's motion to reconsider, a fifth judge joined the panel who had just been confirmed by the legislature, Judge Paula Nakayama, and she joined the plurality making it a majority. So it ended up a 3-1-1 or 4-1 decision depending on how you want to read it.

[00:05:02] Randall Roth: Okay. And, and then, what, how does the, the lower court, um, part of this fit in? In other words, it was sent down to the lower court again?

[00:05:12] Dan Foley: Correct. It's currently in the lower court, um, and the trial has been continued until July 15 of 1996, so the current Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law can complete its report. But the state, through the Attorney General, uh, Steve Michaels, uh, has the burden of proving a compelling state interest to justify the sex discrimination and to deny marriage licenses to the three same-sex couples.

[00:05:39] Randall Roth: Okay. So, Steve Michaels, it sounds to me as though if, if you can't come up with this thing called a compelling state interest, we're going to be seeing same-sex marriages sometime in the not too distant future within the next year.

[00:05:53] Steve Michaels: That's not entirely true, Randy, because the case is not completely over, uh, even as to the issue of whether we have to prove, uh, a compelling state interest. Uh, we at the Attorney General's office do believe that the Hawaii Supreme Court's three-justice opinion is wrong in its saying that the marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender. Uh, it may well be the case that they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, as do uh, a number of laws and policies uh, for example, in the United States military, do.

[00:06:32] Steve Michaels: But the question in our judgment is whether whether the Hawaii Supreme Court correctly uh, defined the issue as gender discrimination. But assuming that that issue is one that we will continue to lose on all the way through the system, uh, we still uh, have some very strong arguments why there are compelling state interests.

[00:06:52] Randall Roth: Okay. And as I understand it, uh, the state doesn't necessarily oppose same-sex marriage, but the state, the state Attorney General's office feels that if we're going to have same-sex marriages, that should be decided by the legislature, rather than decided by the courts?

[00:07:10] Steve Michaels: That's right. Uh, our position is not to take uh, a policy uh point on whether we should have same-sex marriage or not. That's really for the legislature to decide. We are not against same-sex marriage. We are against same-sex marriage by constitutional fiat because we do not believe that the Constitution intrudes on the legislative discretion in this area in a manner that requires same-sex marriage.

[00:07:35] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, there's this thing called the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, and the legislature created it, uh, ostensibly to do three things: to, uh, take a look at what legal and economic benefits are extended to opposite cup opposite set sex couples that isn't extended to same-sex couples, uh, to determine whether there's a substantial public policy reason for making the the distinction, and then to to recommend action to the legislatures uh, to the legislators as to what to do about all of this. Jim Hohkberg, who's on the phone, is one of the seven commissioners, and Kuhumie Aloha Gomes just came into the studio, she's another one.

[00:08:21] Randall Roth: And so let's go to Jim first on the phone, and Jim, could you tell us real briefly, um, your thinking on the work of the Commission?

[00:08:30] Jim Hochberg: Well, yeah, and and, uh, Randy, you made the same mistake in describing the legislation that our chairman made. You what you said is where we're supposed to find legal and economic benefits and substantial policy reasons to extend benefits. But what the legislation said is find major legal and economic benefits, and look at substantial public policy reasons to extend or not to extend the benefits.

[00:08:58] Jim Hochberg: And one of the biggest criticisms of the, um, commission's work, and I think it invalidates the work of the commission, is that the chairman and the the rest of the five-member majority refused to acknowledge those distinctions, and they refused to identify only major benefits, and they also refused to consider or or even allow us to discuss public policy reasons not to extend the benefits. Okay. And, uh, and that I think is really a major criticism. What the, uh, commission was guided by, I think, in my opinion, were two things.

[00:09:37] Jim Hochberg: First of all, they came in with a preconceived majority, with a preconceived notion to find what they wanted to find, regardless of what they had to disregard or not look at at all, and they had a short time frame. So by fiat of five votes to two, they controlled the discussion, they controlled who was allowed to testify, they controlled the information flow, so they could in a short time find what they were looking for.

[00:10:06] Randall Roth: Now, you're saying the the five who are in the majority, who are recommending, or at least tentatively recommending, that the legislature, um, support same-sex marriage in in one way or another, you're saying that their minds were made up from the very beginning. They're saying that that you and your fellow commission member, who are in the minority who oppose same-sex marriage, that your minds were made up initially. Is is that something that you would acknowledge that everyone came to this with a preconceived notion as to what should be done about same-sex marriage?

[00:10:40] Jim Hochberg: No. As a matter of fact, I don't know how the majority can say what it is that I thought or Tony Sheldon thought about the issue of marriage because we were never allowed to talk about it. Okay. My my preconceived notion was that this was going to be a government commission that actually wanted to do what the legislature asked, which was to examine and try and figure out what should happen.

[00:11:05] Jim Hochberg: But there was no examination. It was, it was really amazing, but you did cut me off, and there was a second thing I think that was motivating the commission. And that was, they were aware from the beginning because the chairman several times said, look, whatever we do isn't, we can't force the legislature into anything. Let's do our report. And and then as the commission lived its life and wrote its report, it's clear what they were really doing was gunning for scuttling the state's defense in the lawsuit. And so I hope that before your show's over, we can hear from Dan how he intends to use the report in the lawsuit.

[00:11:41] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, we're going to ask him in in just a little bit. Uh, and Jim, I know you've got to go soon, you've got a commitment, uh, but I think you're going to be able to hang on for a couple more minutes, is that right?

[00:11:52] Jim Hochberg: Yeah, at about 8:20, I'm going to have to hang up, so I won't say goodbye, I'll just disappear quietly in the morning.

[00:11:56] Randall Roth: Okay. Thank you, Jim. Um, next we hear from Kuhumie Aloha Gomes. Good morning, Kuhumie Aloha.

[00:12:01] Kuumealoha Gomes: Good morning.

[00:12:02] Randall Roth: Um, and thank you for coming in. That was my mistake. I had initially asked Kuhumie Aloha if she'd be available by phone, and she graciously said yes, and then I decided that I'd rather have you here and I think I neglected to mention that to you, but she zipped down here in about, uh, 3 minutes, and so

[00:12:19] Kuumealoha Gomes: by shake of the duck's tail.

[00:12:21] Randall Roth: If you've, uh, got your breath.

[00:12:23] Kuumealoha Gomes: Okay, got it.

[00:12:23] Randall Roth: Um, what we're doing right now, Dan Foley very briefly gave us a history of the Baehr v. Lewin case. Steve Michaels told us how the state fits into this. You just heard Jim Hohkberg who is one of the seven members of this commission on sexual orientation and the law. You also are one of those seven members, but you're in the, the majority of five. He's in the minority of two. The commission has just issued its report but it's still tentative. It's going to make its final vote in, in a week or so.

[00:12:55] Randall Roth: Uh, you've just heard him be very critical of the way the commission was structured and the way the commission conducted its work. What are your thoughts on that?

[00:13:03] Kuumealoha Gomes: I think that the commission did what we were assigned to do, and, um, I think Tom Guild did a wonderful job in terms of keeping us on task. I can understand what Jim is saying, and it must be really hard to be in the minority, knowing that we're moving along, um, as defined by the act, and that we are looking at the things that we had to look at.

[00:13:28] Kuumealoha Gomes: Um, I think that the final conclusion that we've come out with is based on going through the literature, based on going through the, um, the testimonies, listening to the extensive testimonies that we had and and hearing from the so-called the experts that that have testified, as well as the Hawaii Revised Statutes. And we have spent, um, extensive amount of hours looking at those things to indeed determine whether there are rights, um, there are privileges and benefits that are being afforded to opposite sex couples that are not being afforded to same-sex couples through marriage.

[00:14:09] Kuumealoha Gomes: And, um, our findings are that indeed, if we were to when you, um, spell it all out, that indeed it's the same-sex couples who are being going to be discriminated against if they are not afforded marriage and the privileges and benefits that come with it. It is the states the only thing that we need to address, and one of the things that I must say is that um, Jim has been very very consistent, both he and Tony have been very very consistent in terms of their line um about validating or invalidating homosexual um lifestyles. And even the article in today's paper again, it's very consistent about what his focus is.

[00:14:52] Kuumealoha Gomes: And it was very clear that the commission is not about invalidating homosexual lifestyles. It is about the state's role in affording or not affording benefits and privileges to same-sex couples.

[00:15:05] Randall Roth: Okay, so it's not uh, it's not, uh, um, a referendum on homosexuality?

[00:15:12] Kuumealoha Gomes: Not at all.

[00:15:13] Randall Roth: It's whether as a matter of civil rights, two people who are members of the same sex should be given the same rights and privileges and benefits as two members of opposite sex? Is that

[00:15:23] Kuumealoha Gomes: That's that's my understanding. It is about equal rights. And if it were about validating or invalidating homosexual lifestyles, I would not be on the commission. I would not waste my time with that.

[00:15:34] Randall Roth: I think we've got Jim for a couple more minutes. Jim, are you still there?

[00:15:37] Jim Hochberg: Yeah, I'm still here.

[00:15:38] Randall Roth: Uh, why don't you give us a quick reaction to what you've heard from, uh, Kuhumie Aloha, and then I know you've got to take off.

[00:15:45] Jim Hochberg: Good morning, Kuhumie Aloha.

[00:15:46] Kuumealoha Gomes: Good morning, Jim.

[00:15:47] Jim Hochberg: Um, actually, she validated exactly what I was saying, because it's impossible for the commission to evaluate substantial public policy reasons not to extend the benefits of marriage to homosexuals without examining what is homosexuality, what does it do as an impact on society? How does it impact the family? And stuff like that. And that's exactly my complaint. You weren't allowed to deal with that.

[00:16:15] Randall Roth: Oh, and you felt they didn't do that.

[00:16:17] Jim Hochberg: Okay.

[00:16:19] Randall Roth: All right. Well our, our last guest in the studio. We've heard from Dan Foley, Steve Michaels, and Kuhumie Aloha Gomes. And our final fourth guest is Scott MacCool Connie. Um, Scott, I know you've worked with the Rutherford Institute over the years, and as I understand it, that organization has been consistently opposed to same-sex marriage. Um, what do you have to add to the conversation? Um, anything that hasn't been said that needs to be said before we take calls?

[00:16:52] Scott MacCool Connie: Well, the Rutherford Institute has opposed uh, same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons, and I I don't purport to speak for the Rutherford Institute this morning. I've never worked on a Rutherford case that involved same-sex uh, issues or homosexual rights issues. The kinds of issues that I've dealt with are or First Amendment religious freedom kinds of issues. Uh, but I I can talk for myself, and one of the things that really concerns me about the idea of same-sex marriage is that there is no such thing as a society that has equated same-sex relationships and opposite sex relationships and has endured.

[00:17:29] Scott MacCool Connie: In other words, those societies that have gone down the road of saying that homosexuality is equivalent in in all of its, uh, benefits to society as heterosexual relationships, um, haven't lasted very long. And where societies have returned to the so-called traditional values, that is marriage between one man and one woman, the societies have have rejuvenated and and have flourished.

[00:17:54] Randall Roth: Okay. Well you're listening to Pop Radio. My name is Randy Roth. We're talking about same-sex marriage. With me in the studio is Dan Foley, who's a civil rights attorney and representing the three same-sex couples who have sued for the right to marry. Steve Michaels, who is an attorney in the Attorney General's office in Hawaii, and as such is lead counsel, uh, defending the state's right to deny the marriage licenses. Kuhumie Aloha Gomes, who is the director of the Kuhumie Aloha student services at the University of Hawaii Manoa and a member of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law. She's one of the majority members of the that commission who at least tentatively have decided to support the notion of same-sex marriages. And Scott MacCool Connie who is, uh, an attorney in town with the Rutherford Institute or has worked on cases in their behalf, and basically Scott, uh, feels that same-sex marriages is not something that's in the best interests of of the people of Hawaii.

[00:18:54] Randall Roth: We heard on the phone from Jim Hohkberg, who also is a member of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law. You also are one of those seven members, but you're in the the majority of five, he's in the minority of two. The commission has just issued its report but it's still tentative. It's going to make its final vote in, in a week or so. Uh, you've just heard him be very critical of the way the commission was structured, and the way the commission conducted its work.

[00:19:00] Randall Roth: And he is a member of the minority of two who are unhappy with the way the commission worked and unhappy with the tentative support that it seems to be giving to same-sex marriages. If you would like to ask a question or make a brief comment, all you have to do is call us at 955-8821. Neighbor Islanders are always invited to call collect. Our number again is 955-8821. And if you would like to watch a report on this show tonight, we think Channel 2 news is going to be doing something at 6 and perhaps again at 10.

[00:19:36] Randall Roth: We have Manolo Morales and Greg the cameraman down here and so Channel 2 News is the place to be at 6 and 10 tonight. Our number again, 955-8821. First we have Steve from Waipahu. Good morning, Steve.

[00:19:52] Steve: Good morning. I have, excuse me, I have a very brief question for Ms. Gomes and a very brief question for the panel in general. I'd like to ask them to get off and listen. My brief question for Ms. Gomes is she was associated with the ethnic studies up at the university. I think it would be very interesting for us to hear what she has to say about traditional Hawaiian views on this issue and on homosexuality in general and if there is anything to be said about that.

[00:20:21] Steve: And secondly, my second question to the panel in general was, in certain religions and cultures, polygamy is practiced and does anyone on the panel feel that if why changes its law on the issue of same-sex marriage the issue of polygamy will arise and should be addressed and I'll get off and listen.

[00:20:42] Randall Roth: Thank you, Steve. Mayor Aloha. Um, what about that?

[00:20:46] Kuumealoha Gomes: Yeah, thank you very much, Steve, for your question. And, um, one of the references is that, um, I would refer you to is Lily Kala Comalili Heiva's book, um, uh Oh gosh, I forgot the title, but, um, it's the only book that she has out right now. And in it, she does speak about homosexual relationships in the Hawaiian community. Um, and in fact, if you look, um, one of the things I did was took a quote out of their, um, made a reference out of the this morning's article about, um, Kaukea Oli, who is the author of the state motto statement.

[00:21:26] Kuumealoha Gomes: And there's several pages in which she talks about and she gets it out of Kamakau, and she talks about the homosexual or the icony relationship of Kaukea Oli as well as makes reference to how that was a, um, a practicing lifestyle, um, during that period. So in the Hawaiian community, the traditional Hawaiian community, homosexual relationships were well accepted. Um, in terms of I I don't understand what your question is, um, regarding homosexuality in general.

[00:21:59] Randall Roth: Well, let's throw it to, uh, to the lawyers who are involved in Bervy Lewin, Dan Foley?

[00:22:05] Dan Foley: As far as this polygamy question, whether polygamy would become an issue or come before the courts as a result of this case, I don't think so. This case deals with the sex discrimination clause in the Hawaii constitution. The question of polygamy, as it was once addressed by the courts, as most people know the Mormons practiced polygamy and that issue went before the United States Supreme Court. The issue was not equal protection or sex discrimination or homosexuality. It was freedom of religion. And the Mormons lost, the U.S. Supreme Court found a significant or compelling state interest to infringe upon their freedom of religion.

[00:22:49] Dan Foley: So this case would have no impact or no effect in bringing polygamy to the courts.

[00:22:55] Randall Roth: Isn't this, Scott, part of of your position that the discrimination simply means choosing and the justice society would choose to limit marriage to to two individuals at any one time? Um, you're saying it wouldn't be uh, unacceptable discrimination or shouldn't be unacceptable discrimination to limit it to two people of opposite sex? Or am I missing something?

[00:23:18] Scott: No, that's right. Let me take a step back and say something about the traditional Hawaiian culture. We definitely need to accept what's good in Hawaiian culture, but we shouldn't accept everything from Hawaiian culture. If you read the histories, you know too that there was a time when if a woman ate bananas, she would, she would be killed. That was a capital offense. So there are things to be accepted and there are things that that maybe we shouldn't accept. Now I think the question about polygamy is a very, very good one because there are various limitations on marriage.

[00:23:50] Scott: Right now the law says that marriage has to be between one man and one woman, but that's those aren't the only limitations. There's also age limitations. There's also relationship limitations. And those kinds of limitations are based on a couple of things. One of them is based on morality, and and and the society's traditional views as to who should and who shouldn't be married. Another thing that those uh kinds of limitations are based on is is health. People, uh, fathers marrying daughters, for example, and having children, or brothers and sisters marrying and having children can be a very bad thing with respect to the children. There can be very serious health problems arising out of that.

[00:24:30] Randall Roth: Okay. Let's, um, go to another caller Scott in Kani-Ohe. Good morning, Scott.

[00:24:35] Scott: Good morning. Thanks very much. I, um, I was kind of following on those same lines as far as, uh, polygamy. But, you know, the the argument based solely on a sexual preference surely seems illogical to me. It, it, it seems baseless. Um, I know right now if you're a, for example, a pedophile, it's illegal. But when do the laws start addressing that to make it legal? And then when do the laws start addressing that to enable you to get benefits for it? And at what point do we stop, okay? Um, it, this

[00:25:08] Randall Roth: Scott, let me, let me ask Ku Aloha Gomez, Ku Aloha, Kuma-loha Gomes and Ku, I'm sorry to to not say your name as smoothly as as I should. You know, early in the morning. Uh, thank you, you're awfully kind. Um, could you respond to that and and I think a theme that I'm hearing is that there are a number of people in Hawaii who feel that homosexuality is is morally wrong and that somehow sanctioning marriage between same-sex couples will promote homosexuality. Um, two thoughts there. Could you respond to each one?

[00:25:52] Kuumealoha Gomes: I I think first of all, um, I want to just address just briefly something that Scott said in terms of taking the the the good and not the worst from Hawaiian society, and his reference to women eating bananas and and what happened to them. I just want to remind you that the reason why women did not, or were not allowed to eat bananas, is because it was in the Hawaiian culture considered a phallic symbol, and because women had so much power, it was seen as if they ate that, in essence, they were also eating man's power. So I just want to make that straight.

[00:26:24] Kuumealoha Gomes: Um, and the other thing is it's Native Lands and foreign desires, which is Kuma-loha Hiva's book. The the whole issue around um same-sex marriage, I want to remind people is not about a moral issue, and we must stay away from that. It is about, um, the civil rights. It is about, um, it is about same-sex marriage, and the laws and the the the benefits and the privileges that go along with that. I think if we we get to the level of discussing it as a moral issue, we're going to get totally sidetracked and get caught up in other kinds of issues and we must stay away from that.

[00:27:05] Randall Roth: Okay. I think Steve Michaels wanted to say something about that, and then I'll come back to you.

[00:27:10] Steve Michaels: I would agree that to the extent that we are involved in a court case and to the extent the legislature is called upon to write law, that uh the morality of homosexuality should not play a significant role in that. Uh that's still not to say that there are not uh legitimate distinctions that can be drawn between uh same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Our case in court has identified a number of those, uh, morally neutral uh reasons for doing that. Uh, one of which is the state's interest simply in having its marriage is uniformly recognized throughout um the other 49 states and indeed throughout the world.

[00:27:58] Steve Michaels: And the other interest is uh our interest in focusing the regulatory uh and um the financial resources of society on those couples who can conceive children and raise them as couples. Um, it's not a matter of morality or a judgment on homosexuality to say that same-sex couples simply cannot as couples, procreate and raise their biological children in a single home, which is the focus of the marriage statutes as we read them.

[00:28:37] Steve Michaels: And in that regard it it takes this the debate a step back from some of the stronger views about homosexuality on either side uh to frame the debate in that way and I'd be curious to see how people respond to the question so phrased.

[00:28:54] Randall Roth: Okay. Ku Aloha, if you want to respond briefly to what Steve just said, then we're going to go to some more callers.

[00:28:59] Kuumealoha Gomes: Right. Um, in, in, in regards to the um the issue of same-sex couples and procreation and raising children, I think there there is no evidence that says that uh same-sex couples cannot raise children in in healthy lifestyles. In fact, um, one of the testimonies that we had from Dr. Bidwell, who's a pediatrician at Kepelani Hospital and studies that have done have been done by the Pediatrics Association of which he's a member, clearly states that there is no evidence that disqualifies same-sex couples from being really good parents.

[00:29:38] Kuumealoha Gomes: And um, I think that that the issue of marriage is pro, um, the reason for marriage is being, uh, something between um, opposite sex couples and for the reason of procreation is so far off base. I think that um, you know, even that's not a condition for homosexual couples today. There are many couples who don't agree to have children, marry and don't agree to have children, or are beyond the child-bearing age.

[00:30:06] Randall Roth: As, as I understand it, same-sex couples currently are allowed to adopt children and take in foster children. Is that correct?

[00:30:15] Kuumealoha Gomes: That, as far as I know.

[00:30:16] Randall Roth: Steve, is that, is that correct?

[00:30:18] Steve Michaels: Right now, there does not appear to be legal impediments along those lines. And to come back to another point um that was made, uh the state's position in court is not that same-sex couples cannot raise children in a positive environment.

[00:30:35] Steve Michaels: However, it is our position that all things being equal, with emphasis on that caveat, uh that children are best raised by their biological parents in a single home, and that the laws relating to marriage subsidize that relationship, and that to extend the benefits in uh this very marked departure uh that is sought in the, in the bare case, would dilute the ability of society to focus those benefits on children being raised by their biological parents.

[00:31:04] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, we've got a a lot of people on the line and we want to go to them as soon as we can. But Jim Holkberg, who is uh with us earlier is now on a cellular phone. on his way to church, I think. And the the urge to get back uh into this conversation has overcome him. Jim, are you there?

[00:32:30] Speaker 3: [unintelligible — caller audio garbled in the recording]

[00:32:53] Station announcer: Next, the Price of Paradise radio show. Stay tuned. As host, Randall Roth and today's guests look at some of the biggest challenges facing Hawaii. Roth, a UH law professor is editor and co-author of the two volume book series of the same name. Both volumes of The Price of Paradise were listed as best sellers by the Hawaii Book Publishers Association for 1993. The Price of Paradise is a talk show that is lively, informative and asks the questions you care about.

[00:33:24] Randall Roth: Good morning. I'm Randy Roth, host of the Price of Paradise radio show. Stay tuned. In just a few minutes, I'll be talking to bishop estate trustee, Oz Stender and bishop estate critic, Desmond Burn. I predict a friendly but lively exchange of ideas and concerns that you won't want to miss. And it's all right here after a few minutes of news headlines.

[Note: the live program ends at about 32:30. The final four minutes of the recording are a separately recorded station promo for the show.]