osexuality marriage requirement as a matter of lawand dismissed the plaintiffs' challenges to it.Yet recently the Circuit Court of Hawaii decided that Hawaii hadviolated Baehr and her partner's constitutional rights by the fourteenthamendment and that they could be recognized as a marriage. The court found thatthe state of Hawaii's constitution expressly discriminated against homosexualsand that because of Hawaii's anti-discrimination law they must re evaluate thesituation. After the ruling the state immediately asked for a stay of judgment,until the appeal had been convened, therefore putting off any marriage betweenBaehr and her partner for at least a year. By far Baehr is the most positive step toward actual marriage rights forgay and lesbian people. Currently there is a high tolerance for homosexualsthroughout the United States and currently in Hawaii. Judges do not need thepopularity of the people on the Federal or circuit court level to make newprecedent. There is no clear majority that homosexuals should have marriagerights in the general public, and yet the courts voted for Baehr. The judiciaryhas its own mind on how to interpret the constitution which is obviously verydifferent then most of American popular belief. This is the principal reasonthat these judges are not elected by the people, so they do not have to bow topeople pressure.The constitutional rights argument for same-sex marriage affirms thatthere is a fundamental constitutional right to marry, or a broader right ofprivacy or of intimate association. The essence of this right is the private,intimate association of consenting adults who want to share their lives andcommitment with each other and that same-sex couples have just as much intimacyand need for marital privacy as heterosexual couples; and that laws allowingheterosexual, but not same-sex, couples to marry infringe upon and discriminateagainst this fundamental right. Just as the Supreme Court compelle...
