The requirement has the secular purpose of maintaining the integrity of marriage records.... Judicial officers and religious leaders are individuals that the State has recognized in the past and can reasonably expect will ensure, in the future, the recording of essential information.The court also rejected plaintiff's free speech and equal protection challenges, holding that there is no fundamental right to be entitled to solemnize marriages.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Court Rejects Challenge To Hawaii's Limits On Who Can Perform Marriages
In Woods-Bateman v. State of Hawaii, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39661 (D HI, May 13, 2008), an Hawaii federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to HRS § 572-12. The statute limits those who can be licensed to solemnize marriages to either clergy or judges. In filling out an application to be licensed to perform marriages, plaintiff left blank the questions relating to whether he came within one of these categories. After he was denied a license, he sued claiming that his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated. The court held that Hawaii's requirements did not violate the Establishment Clause: