## Facts

- Hawaii’s marriage statute, HRS § 572-1, limited marriage to a “male and a female.”
- Three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses from the Hawaii Department of Health and were denied solely because they were not opposite-sex pairs.
- The denials followed an Attorney General interpretation that the statute permitted only opposite-sex marriages.
- The couples sued the Director of the Department of Health in his official capacity, alleging violations of the Hawaii Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, including its express prohibition on sex discrimination (art. I, § 5).
- The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the State, effectively sustaining the statute without factual development.

## Issues

1. Whether HRS § 572-1’s opposite-sex requirement creates a sex-based classification under the Hawaii Constitution’s equal protection clause (art. I, § 5).
2. If the statute is sex-based, whether it is subject to strict scrutiny requiring a compelling state interest and necessity.
3. Whether the case could be dismissed on the pleadings without factual development on the State’s asserted justifications.

## Decision

- The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that limiting marriage to a “male and a female” is a sex-based classification under art. I, § 5.
- Because the classification is based on sex, the statute is constitutional only if the State proves the restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
- The circuit court erred by resolving the constitutional claim at the pleadings stage where factual issues remained relevant to strict-scrutiny review.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hawaii Constitution, classifications based on “race, religion, sex, or ancestry” trigger strict scrutiny.
- An opposite-sex-only marriage rule classifies by sex because eligibility turns on the applicant’s sex relative to the chosen spouse (e.g., one sex may marry a given person while the other may not).
- Equal application to men and women does not eliminate a sex classification when the statutory line is drawn by sex; the State bears the burden to justify the classification under strict scrutiny.
- Judgment on the pleadings is improper where resolution depends on facts relevant to the governing constitutional standard; pleadings-stage review assumes the plaintiff’s allegations as true and asks whether any set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

## Conclusion

The Hawaii Supreme Court treated the State’s opposite-sex marriage requirement as sex discrimination under the Hawaii Constitution, requiring the State on remand to prove the restriction is necessary to a compelling interest; it therefore vacated the pleadings-stage dismissal and returned the case for factual development and strict-scrutiny review.


Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)