Gay 'marriage' ban struck

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    BALTIMORE -- A Circuit Court judge yesterday ruled that Maryland's 33-year-old ban on same-sex "marriage" is unconstitutional.
    In issuing her ruling, Judge M. Brooke Murdock imposed a stay on it pending an anticipated appeal -- and preventing a rush to the altar by homosexual couples.
    The ban had been challenged by 19 homosexual men and women who filed suit against court clerks in Prince George's, Dorchester, St. Mary's and Washington counties and Baltimore. The clerks had denied the homosexuals applications for marriage licenses, citing the 1973 law.
    "After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge," Judge Murdock said in her 22-page ruling.
    The law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees "equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex," the judge said.
    The Maryland Attorney General's Office yesterday appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals. The case appears destined for the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
    "The most important thing is that she stayed her own decision," said Assistant Attorney General Robert Zarnock, who argued the case for the state. "Today is like yesterday, as far as the law is concerned."
    He vowed to "do a better job" at the appellate level.
    The state's position is that marriage is not a fundamental right but a privilege and that the 1973 law does not discriminate based on sex because both men and women are prohibited from entering into same-sex "marriage."
    In addition to Maryland, homosexuals have filed "freedom to marry" suits in California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York and Washington state.
    Lower-court judges in California, Washington and New York City have ruled their states' marriage laws unconstitutional. Judges in New Jersey and upstate New York have upheld the marriage laws. Connecticut and Iowa are awaiting their courts' first rulings on marriage laws.
    American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ken Choe, who argued the case before Judge Murdock, said he was pleased by her ruling and is optimistic the appeals courts will "understand the plight of our clients."
    Mr. Choe said Maryland's high courts do not have a reputation for leaning severely to the left or right, and the appeal will not be won easily.
    "Is it a slam dunk?" he said. "No."
    But University of Baltimore law professor Byron Warnken says Maryland's Court of Appeals remains one of the most liberal top state courts in the country, despite becoming slightly more conservative since 1999.
    The Maryland Court of Appeals consists of one appointee by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican; five by former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat; and one by former Gov. William Donald Schaefer, a Democrat.
    Mr. Ehrlich appointed Judge Clayton Greene Jr. in 2004. Mr. Glendening appointed Chief Judge Robert M. Bell in 1996 and Judges Dale R. Cathell in 1998, Alan M. Wilner in 1996, Lynne A. Battaglia in 2001 and Glen T. Harrell Jr. in 1999. Mr. Schaefer appointed Judge Irma S. Raker in 1994.
    Judge Murdock's ruling has fueled a drive by conservative state lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual "marriage."
    Democratic leaders had cited the 1973 law in defending their opposition to the amendment, which would have to be ratified by voters.
    "It is a sad day for Maryland, and I can assure you there will be legislative consequences," said Delegate Don Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel Republican leading the constitutional amendment effort.
    "The majority party has been steadfast in blocking my every attempt to get a vote on a constitutional amendment," he said. "They don't want their members spotlighted on voting against marriage.
    Democratic leaders also may resist putting a marriage amendment on the ballot this election year because it could energize conservative voters and help Republican candidates, including Mr. Ehrlich in his re-election bid and Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his run for the U.S. Senate.
    Judge Murdock, 56, was appointed to the Baltimore Circuit Court by Mr. Glendening in 1997. She was elected to a full, 15-year term in 1998.
    A Baltimore native, Judge Murdock received her bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware in 1972 and her law degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law in 1977.
    Before becoming a judge, she was a founding partner of the Ferguson, Schetelich, Heffernan & Murdock law firm, which specializes in business and government issues, such as transportation and real estate.
    Judge Murdock also served as a federal public defender from 1987 to 1991 and as an investigator for the U.S. International Trade Commission from 1980 to 1982. She is a member of the Women's Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges and the Women's Law Center.
    • Cheryl Wetzstein contributed to this article, which is based in part on wire service reports.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20060120-103704-2059r_page2.htm
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,564
    Thanks Received:
    8,169
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,197
    How exactly? No one is being proscribed from marriage because they are male or they are female. How on earth can it violate that clause? Judges are supposed to start with the presumption that the law is constitutional and there is no reason to find that any such law contradicts this amendment.

    If the judges are going to be activists they could atleast come up with some reasonable reasons for going off the reservation.
     
  3. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    All I'm gonna say is "Good"
     
  4. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Good for who, what ? .. :gross2:
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Is this really how you want to win the battle, by having judges twist the law to force the idea of altering a several millenia old religious institution against the will of the people? If this is how gays continue to fight their battles for what they think is a right, they will continue to be villified. If you want a new law, appeal to the legislation, not the judiciary. If these laws were being passed by actually using the democratic process, I don't think people would have as much of a problem with them.

    When asked this, the judge said, "Ooooh, it means gender. Oops."
     
  6. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    All I said was "Good" because the ban was struck. I believe the best way is to appeal, as you said we should do. The old religious institution has changed through time. Sometimes it was used for political gain, sometimes it was forced as to marry into nobility, or even allow for multiple marriage. Your oldest institution has many different faces and the one you're most used to is the most recent development in terms of being able to pick and choose someone you love. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage shows a few interesting variations of marriage in today's world.
     
  7. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Well hell since I live in Maryland I can tell y'all that has a member of an anti gay marriage group this will be appealed and will certainly end up as a measure hopefully on the 2006 ballot, if not then '08. Anybody want to wager on the outcome of the vote? Lets see, gay marriage bans have come up in 12 states so far and we are 12-0, think i'll bet on the ban.

    But then again it only takes one liberal activist judge to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the majority, queers know this, they know its their only hope to get their precious marriage legalized.

    Gay marriage is nothing more than the attempt to legitimize a perversion of choice, period.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Yeah, we recently had that vote here (whether or not to adopt a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only) and the gays took it just where they like it most ... in the ass.
     
  9. jAZ
    Offline

    jAZ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    Not now that you've given me an easier path...
    WTF is the government doing institutionalizing a religious practice?
     
  10. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Get off the “activist” Judge BS people. This Judge made a ruling on the law and gave time for appeal before anything happens…Geeeeeezzzzzzzz, talk about knee jerk reactions.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

minortya