/Users/andrea/_magisterarbeit/korpus/clean/trainkorpus/41/file18.html NN ----------------------------------------- : State NP of IN HawaiiReport NP of IN the DT Commissionon NP Sexual JJ Orientationand NN the DT Law NN SUMMARY NN Pursuant JJ to TO the DT requirements NNS of IN Act NP 5 CD , , Session NP Laws NP of IN Hawaii NP 1995 CD , , the DT Commission NP met VVD on IN numerous JJ occasions NNS from IN late JJ September NP to TO early JJ December NP 1995 CD , , received VVN public JJ statements NNS , , heard VVN and CC examined VVN numerous JJ witnesses NNS , , and CC addressed VVD the DT three CD tasks NNS assigned VVN to TO it PP by IN that DT Act NP . SENT These DT tasks NNS were VBD , , in IN brief NN . SENT 1 CD examining VVG major JJ legal JJ and CC economic JJ benefits NNS extended VVN to TO married JJ opposite JJ sex NN couples NNS but CC not RB to TO same JJ sex NN couples NNS . SENT 2 CD examining VVG the DT public JJ policy NN reasons NNS to TO extend VV or CC not RB to TO extend VV all DT or CC some DT of IN such JJ benefits NNS to TO same JJ sex NN couples NNS . SENT and CC 3 CD recommend VVP legislative JJ action NN to TO so RB extend VV such JJ benefits NNS . SENT The DT Commission's NP tasks NNS and CC structure NN arose VVD from IN several JJ interconnected VVN judicial JJ and CC legislative JJ actions NNS . SENT the DT first JJ was VBD the DT State NP Supreme NP Court NP decision NN in IN Baehr NP v NN . SENT Lewin NP 74 NP Haw NP . SENT 530 CD , , 1993 CD . SENT the DT second NN was VBD Act NP 217 CD , , Session NP Laws NP of IN Hawaii NP 1994 CD , , in IN which WDT the DT Legislature NP , , in IN reaction NN to TO the DT Baehr NP case NN , , redefined VVD marriage NN under IN Chapter NP 572 CD , , Hawaii NP Revised VVN Statutes NNS , , as IN being VBG between IN a DT man NN and CC a DT woman NN and CC then RB , , interestingly RB and CC after IN the DT fact NN , , attempted VVD to TO create VV a DT legislative JJ history NN for IN this DT concept NN . SENT third JJ , , the DT first JJ Commission NP , , set VVD up RP under IN Act NP 217 CD , , was VBD unable JJ to TO complete VV its PP$ work NN and CC collapsed VVD because IN of IN court NN challenges NNS to TO some DT of IN its PP$ members NNS because IN of IN their PP$ selection NN by IN certain JJ religious JJ organizations NNS . SENT fourth JJ and CC finally RB , , the DT present JJ Commission NP of IN seven CD members NNS from IN the DT general JJ public NN was VBD selected VVN according VVG to TO said VVN Act NP 5 CD and CC appointed VVN by IN the DT Governor NP . SENT During IN the DT course NN of IN its PP$ work NN , , the DT Commission NP identified VVD a DT substantial JJ number NN of IN such JJ major JJ benefits NNS and CC divided VVN these DT benefits NNS into IN three CD categories NNS . SENT 1 CD intangible JJ benefits NNS related VVN emotionally RB to TO the DT status NN of IN marriage NN , , which WDT do VVP not RB necessarily RB have VH an DT economic JJ value NN . SENT 2 CD quantifiable JJ benefits NNS which WDT can MD be VB tied VVN to TO monetary JJ amounts NNS . SENT and CC 3 CD general JJ benefits NNS which WDT may MD not RB have VH major JJ economic JJ value NN , , may MD be VB infrequently RB used VVN , , or CC which WDT may MD be VB a DT combination NN of IN smaller JJR benefits NNS . SENT These DT benefits NNS are VBP listed VVN and CC described VVN in IN detail NN in IN Chapter NP 1 CD of IN this DT report NN . SENT The DT Commission NP in IN Chapter NP 2 CD went VVD on IN to TO identify VV four CD basic JJ policy NN reasons NNS why WRB the DT right NN to TO legally RB marry VV should MD be VB extended VVN to TO same JJ sex NN couples NNS . SENT 1 LS the DT denial NN of IN such JJ right NN is VBZ a DT denial NN of IN the DT state NN and CC federal JJ constitutional JJ right NN to TO equal JJ protection NN of IN the DT law NN . SENT 2 LS the DT state NN Supreme NP Court's NP requirement NN in IN the DT Baehr NP case NN that IN the DT State NP show VVP a DT compelling JJ state NN interest NN for IN such JJ denial NN and CC the DT reasons NNS advanced VVD by IN those DT who WP support VVP this DT denial NN show VVP a DT close JJ parallel NN to TO the DT landmark NN case NN of IN Loving NP v NN . SENT Virginia NP 388 NP U NP . SENT S NP . SENT 1 CD 1967 CD in IN which WDT the DT United NP States NPS Supreme NP Court NP found VVD a DT Virginia NP statute NN outlawing VVG interracial JJ marriage NN to TO be VB invalid JJ . SENT 3 LS the DT argument NN that IN same JJ sex NN marriage NN should MD be VB barred VVN because IN it PP would MD not RB lead VV to TO procreation NN was VBD invalid JJ , , inconsistent JJ and CC discriminatory JJ because IN this DT standard NN was VBD not RB applied VVN to TO heterosexual JJ marriage NN . SENT and CC 4 CD the DT religious JJ beliefs NNS of IN some DT members NNS of IN the DT community NN which WDT would MD ban VV such JJ marriages NNS can MD certainly RB be VB adhered VVD to TO by IN those DT persons NNS or CC their PP$ churches NNS but CC they PP cannot NN be VB imposed VVN by IN state NN law NN on IN others NNS who WP do VVP not RB subscribe VV to TO such JJ beliefs NNS . SENT Pursuant JJ to TO its PP$ third JJ basic JJ task NN to TO recommend VV appropriate JJ legislative JJ action NN to TO extend VV such JJ benefits NNS to TO same JJ sex NN couples NNS the DT Commission NP recommends VVZ , , and CC the DT simplest JJS solution NN would MD be VB , , amending VVG the DT marriage NN statute NN to TO allow VV same JJ gender NN marriage NN and CC extend VV all PDT the DT benefits NNS and CC burdens NNS of IN such JJ status NN to TO those DT couples NNS if IN they PP wished VVD to TO assume VV them PP . SENT In IN addition NN to TO its PP$ first JJ recommendation NN , , the DT Commission NP recommends VVZ a DT second JJ suggestion NN which WDT would MD be VB a DT comprehensive JJ Domestic JJ Partnership NP law NN . SENT This DT law NN would MD not RB solve VV the DT question NN of IN equal JJ protection NN because IN it PP would MD stop VV short RB of IN marriage NN , , but CC it PP would MD allow VV all DT couples NNS same JJ gender NN or CC opposite JJ gender NN to TO assume VV most JJS of IN the DT rights NNS and CC obligations NNS of IN marriage NN without IN being VBG married VVN . SENT These DT options NNS are VBP not RB mutually RB exclusive JJ the DT Legislature NP could MD choose VV either RB or CC both DT . SENT Draft NN legislation NN covering VVG these DT options NNS is VBZ included VVN in IN the DT Appendices NNS . SENT Because IN of IN strong JJ differences NNS between IN a DT five CD member NN majority NN of IN the DT Commission NP and CC the DT two CD minority NN members NNS Mr NP . SENT Hochberg NP and CC Ms NN . SENT Sheldon NP the DT majority NN is VBZ submitting VVG the DT Report NN of IN the DT Commission NP as RB outlined VVD above RB and CC has VHZ asked VVN the DT minority NN to TO prepare VV a DT minority NN opinion NN which WDT is VBZ included VVN in IN Chapter NP 5 CD of IN the DT Report NP . SENT Where WRB appropriate JJ , , the DT materials NNS in IN the DT Appendices NNS attached VVN are VBP noted VVN as IN pertaining VVG to TO the DT Report NP or CC to TO the DT minority NN opinion NN . SENT This DT Report NP is VBZ being VBG submitted VVN to TO the DT Legislature NP pursuant JJ to TO the DT timetable NN set VVD forth RB in IN Act NP 5 CD . SENT The DT next JJ move NN is VBZ up RP to TO that DT body NN . SENT Next JJ Section NN Table NN of IN Contents NNS