Gay 'marriage' ban struck

[Stephanie]

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

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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.

 

[Kagom]

All I'm gonna say is "Good"

 

[Stephanie]

All I'm gonna say is "Good"

Good for who, what ? .. :gross2:

 

[Hobbit]

All I'm gonna say is "Good"

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.

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.

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

 

[Kagom]

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.

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.

 

[OCA]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[jAZ]

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?

Not now that you've given me an easier path...
WTF is the government doing institutionalizing a religious practice?

 

[Mr. P]

"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."

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.

 

[Gunny]

Not now that you've given me an easier path...
WTF is the government doing institutionalizing a religious practice?

Most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals ... get over it.

However, in this case, homosexuality is abnormal. It is perfectly correct for a society to create laws that reflect the beliefs of the majority. That's why we vote ... to ensure laws reflect the will of the majority.

 

[jAZ]

Most of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals ... get over it.

However, in this case, homosexuality is abnormal. It is perfectly correct for a society to create laws that reflect the beliefs of the majority. That's why we vote ... to ensure laws reflect the will of the majority.

And that's why we have a constitution, in part to protect the rights of even the minority from opression by a majority. People always forget that part.

 

[Mr. P]

And that's why we have a constitution, in part to protect the rights of even the minority from opression by a majority. People always forget that part.

Only when convenient.

 

[Gunny]

And that's why we have a constitution, in part to protect the rights of even the minority from opression by a majority. People always forget that part.

I do not forget that part at all. If I have to choose between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority, I'm going to choose the former over the latter. The majority should not have to suffer the whims of the minority. People always seem to forget THAT.

Personally, I prefer the happy medium. But when the desires of the minority are unacceptable to the majority, and there is no happy medium, the majority should not be oppressed by laws that do not reflect the collective will of the society.

In this "for instance," society was has conceded that it is no one's business what people do in the privacy of their own homes in regard to homosexual behavior. Society was pretty-much willing to concede the "civil union."

The flaming vocal minority of hjomoseuxals whose agenda is to be able to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in the faces of Joe Average would have no part of compromise. It was "marriage" or nothing. They got nothing. Tough shit. Perhaps homosexuals ought to consider who they let represent them to the public.

 

[jAZ]

I do not forget that part at all. If I have to choose between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority, I'm going to choose the former over the latter. The majority should not have to suffer the whims of the minority. People always seem to forget THAT.

Personally, I prefer the happy medium. But when the desires of the minority are unacceptable to the majority, and there is no happy medium, the majority should not be oppressed by laws that do not reflect the collective will of the society.

In this "for instance," society was has conceded that it is no one's business what people do in the privacy of their own homes in regard to homosexual behavior. Society was pretty-much willing to concede the "civil union."

The flaming vocal minority of hjomoseuxals whose agenda is to be able to flaunt their aberrant lifestyle in the faces of Joe Average would have no part of compromise. It was "marriage" or nothing. They got nothing. Tough shit. Perhaps homosexuals ought to consider who they let represent them to the public.

Your assertions are internally contradictive. You say you don't forget the "protection of the minority", but then assert that "the majority should not be oppressed by laws that do not reflect the collective will of the society".

You don't leave any room for the protection of the minority opinion with that view.

You say the word "yes", but then describe your opinion of "no".

 

[Gunny]

Your assertions are internally contradictive. You say you don't forget the "protection of the minority", but then assert that "the majority should not be oppressed by laws that do not reflect the collective will of the society".

You don't leave any room for the protection of the minority opinion with that view.

You say the word "yes", but then describe your opinion of "no".

You are incorrect. Please note that I used compromise throughout my post. That is when possible. In the case of homosexuals, it was possible, THEY rejected the compromise offered. Their problem.

There is no conflict. If it comes down to the tyranny of the majority vs the tyranny of the minority and no compromise in sight, I am going to fall on the side of the former.

When push comes to shove, better the minority suffer than the majority.

 

[manu1959]

the constitution provides the minorty a due process protection....not blanket protection that they will get thier way

it does not mean "hey we don't like what the majority has done that is unfair overturn it mr. judge"

i belive current laws in most states ...state marriage is between a man and a women of a certain age and you can't marry family memebers....

all the gay community needs to do is pass a new law....oh they tried that and keep comming up losers....so now since they can't get their way via legislation they are trying to get the courts to throw out existing laws as unconstitutional so they can try and get new laws.....

 

[Gunny]

It's simple to me. "Marriage" is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman, and is given religious conotation. As such, I am against homosexual "marriage."

They want a legal civil union, not my problem. But I hear way too often how I am supposed to keep my church out of government, so I demand the same in return .... keep your government out of my church.

What seems to be ignored in the far more controversial "I'm a fag being denied my rights" argument is the basis for the entire situation, and I never seem to be able to get a comment on a board either.

I believe i should be able to leave my worldy possessions to my dog if I want, and put my thrid cousin on my insurance if I want. To dictate who and what a person can call a beneficiary is the real crime here. THAT to me, is a violation of my and/or anyone else's civil rights.

But it doesn't get the headlines discriminating against an aberrant minority does.

 

[Avatar4321]

I actually think government has a strong policy reason to support marriage as it is.

First, governments have recognized the marriage status in society since before Roman law was codified. So there is a strong tradition for it.

Second, The main reason governments in the past recognized, encouraged, and supported marriage is because its the best method of reproducing and instructing future generations of citizens. The perpetuation of a civilization is a pretty strong reason to support marriage.

Gays don't have either of these reasons. And considering the higher abuse statistics, lower life expectancy, and the inability to reproduce and educate the next generation in the healthiest way there is no good policy reason why the government or society should support "gay marriage."

If the homosexual community can come up with some valid policy arguments. Then go ahead. Come up with them and then try to advocate change through the Democratic process. And considering most politicians are screwing us up the ass its not like you can claim you are underrepresented.

But if you are going to try to force this through the courts and rip up laws such as the one here with such blatant disregard and misinterpretation, then you are going to have alot of angry people on your hands.

There are a number of legal analysts that think that the courts interference in desegregation, while appropriate, also probably set racial equality back in terms of acceptance by the population. Before the Courts ruling the trend toward integration was moving slowly but it was still moving forward. It might have taken longer in the south, but they think the trends show it would have happened eventually. But the resistance from the court rulings made it tougher.

Regardless whether these scholar's are accurate, you will see huge backlash against gays if the court interferes. Use the Democratic process.

 

[Gunny]

I actually think government has a strong policy reason to support marriage as it is.

First, governments have recognized the marriage status in society since before Roman law was codified. So there is a strong tradition for it.

Second, The main reason governments in the past recognized, encouraged, and supported marriage is because its the best method of reproducing and instructing future generations of citizens. The perpetuation of a civilization is a pretty strong reason to support marriage.

Gays don't have either of these reasons. And considering the higher abuse statistics, lower life expectancy, and the inability to reproduce and educate the next generation in the healthiest way there is no good policy reason why the government or society should support "gay marriage."

If the homosexual community can come up with some valid policy arguments. Then go ahead. Come up with them and then try to advocate change through the Democratic process. And considering most politicians are screwing us up the ass its not like you can claim you are underrepresented.

But if you are going to try to force this through the courts and rip up laws such as the one here with such blatant disregard and misinterpretation, then you are going to have alot of angry people on your hands.

There are a number of legal analysts that think that the courts interference in desegregation, while appropriate, also probably set racial equality back in terms of acceptance by the population. Before the Courts ruling the trend toward integration was moving slowly but it was still moving forward. It might have taken longer in the south, but they think the trends show it would have happened eventually. But the resistance from the court rulings made it tougher.

Regardless whether these scholar's are accurate, you will see huge backlash against gays if the court interferes. Use the Democratic process.

I couldn't agree more. The problem is, gays make a choice to live outside the conforms of what is accepted by society as normal. With that choice come consequence. They quite simply want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to go against society, yet not suffer the consequences of their actions.

They aren't going to go into a court and accept the judgment of a justice who is enforcing the law. They're going to go to the justices who decide to contrive their own interpretations favorable to their agenda.

People who aren't willing to man-up to the consequences of their actions certainly aren't above sliding in the legal back door.