Md. court rules
against same-sex marriage ban
Judge says state law
'cannot withstand constitutional challenge'
By Bryian Witte, AP
from baltimoresun.com January 20, 2006
A Baltimore Circuit Court judge today
struck down Maryland's 33-year-old law against same-sex marriage, ruling in
favor of 19 gay men and women who contended the prohibition violated the state's
equal rights amendments.
Anticipating that her decision eventually would be appealed to Maryland's
highest court, the Court of Appeals, Judge M. Brooke Murdock stayed action on
her ruling pending that appeal
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's
statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this
constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote in her decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Equality Maryland and plaintiffs hailed the
decision.
"This is such an exciting moment," said Lisa Polyak, who was one of the
plaintiffs in the case along with her partner, Gita Deane. "Our
participation in this lawsuit has always been about family protections for our
children. Tonight, we will rest a little easier knowing that those
protections are within reach."
The Maryland lawsuit was filed in July 2004 against court clerks in Prince
George's, St. Mary's, Dorchester and Washington counties and Baltimore City.
The clerks denied marriage license applications for same-sex couples and
contended that a civil contract of marriage in Maryland could only be made
between a man and a woman.
The 1973 law specifying that marriage is a union of one man and one woman was
defended by the state attorney general's office.
During arguments in August, Assistant Attorney General Steven Sullivan appealed
to Murdock not to interject the courts into what he said is a legislative
prerogative. Approving marriage of same-sex couples would change "the
essence of the institution as it has always existed," he said at the time.
But in her ruling today, Murdock wrote that the law "discriminates based on
gender."
"There is no apparent compelling state interest in a statutory prohibition of
same-sex marriage discriminating, on the basis of sex, against those individuals
whose gender is identical to their intended spouses," Murdock wrote.
"Indeed, this court is unable to even find that the prohibition of same-sex
marriage rationally relates to a legitimate state interest."
Gov. Robert Ehrlich's spokesman, Henry Fawell, said the Republican governor had
heard of the ruling, but had not seen it.
"It has been forwarded to his legal counsel for review," Fawell said. "It
would be premature to comment on the ruling at this point, but as the governor
has said before, he believes marriage is between one man and one woman."
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, a Democrat, said he believed the ruling
would be overturned.
"In my opinion, the plaintiffs forum shopped," Miller said. "I don't think
the same opinion would have been rendered in 90 percent of the other circuits in
the state of Maryland."
Opponents to same-sex marriage argued that promoting the traditional family unit
of heterosexual parents was a legitimate government interest.
But Murdock said she was "unable to find that preventing same-sex marriage
rationally relates to Maryland's interest in promoting the best interests of
children."
Murdock also wrote that "although tradition and societal values are important,
they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a
discriminatory statutory classification."
States are clearly not in agreement about gay rights. While legal
challenges are pending in a handful of states, 19 states have constitutional
amendments banning gay marriage. Only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.
|
