|
Case
starts in state's highest court as both sides brace for long battle
The
Associated Press
Originally
published December 4, 2006, 2:55 PM EST
Same-sex couples
in Maryland are denied equal protection under the law because they are not permitted to
marry, an attorney for plaintiffs in a gay-marriage lawsuit told the state's
highest court today.
An attorney for the state argued that Maryland's 1973 ban on
same-sex marriage did not constitute gender discrimination and that the gay
marriage question should be decided by the
legislature.
"There is no fundamental constitutional
right to same-sex marriage," said Robert Zarnoch, counsel to the General
Assembly, who argued for the state.
Nine gay couples and a man whose male
partner has died filed a lawsuit in 2004 against court clerks who denied their
applications for marriage licenses. In January, Baltimore Circuit Judge M.
Brooke Murdock struck down the law defining marriage as between one man and one
woman, but stayed the effect of her ruling pending the state's
appeal.
The Court of Appeals gave no indication today of how it would
rule; a decision could take months.
Kenneth Choe, an American Civil
Liberties Union attorney who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, said they were
not trying to undermine the religious institution of marriage but were seeking
the ability to make medical decisions for one another and provide a stable
environment for their children the way married couples do.
"The exclusion
of same-sex couples from marriage violates the most fundamental guarantees of
equality and liberty for all," Choe said.
After the dry constitutional
arguments before the court, the plaintiffs, their supporters and their
detractors spoke outside the court building about the historic implications of
the lawsuit, which supporters see as an extension of the civil rights
movement.
"The times have changed. We're not invisible anymore," said Dan
Furmansky, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality Maryland. "What
we can't do is be legally married and legally related to our partners. ... We
ask our fellow Marylanders today to walk a mile in our shoes."
Delegate
Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel, an ardent foe of same-sex marriage, said he was
impressed with the state's arguments and was confident that the court would
return the issue to the General Assembly.
Still, Dwyer intends to
introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, as he has in three
previous legislative sessions.
"This issue will remain in the courts
unless we pass a constitutional amendment," said Dwyer, who argues that
homosexuality would be taught in public schools if gay marriage is legalized. "I
think that is against the views of the majority of parents who have their
children in public schools."
Children of gay parents, however, are forced
to endure hardships and uncertainty simply because their parents cannot marry,
plaintiffs in the lawsuit said.
Joanne Rabb of Baltimore said she's been
unable to pick up the children she's raising with her partner, Takia Foskey,
from school because she's not a biological relative.
"You have to be an
aunt, a cousin, a grandmother," Rabb said, adding wryly, "I was an aunt for
about three years."
The arguments before the court will propel the state
toward what legal experts predict will be a long, bitterly fought struggle over
who is entitled to the rights and benefits of marriage.
The case also
thrusts Maryland onto the national spotlight as one of
a handful of states whose high courts are deliberating the thorny issue of
same-sex nuptials under the watchful eyes of politicians, advocates of gay
rights and foes of same-sex marriage.
In Maryland, the plaintiffs and their supporters are eager to
place the state in the same category as Massachusetts, the only state that sanctions
gay marriage. Meanwhile opponents, including some vocal members of the General
Assembly, continue to assert that the public should decide the issue at the
polls.
But on one thing, both sides agree: The fight over same-sex
marriage is likely to be a long haul.
"It's the beginning of the wait,"
said Dan Furmansky, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality
Maryland. "If you look at this in the context of civil rights struggles, if you
just won and won, it wouldn't be a struggle."
"It's not going to go
away," said Rick Bowers, whose Defend Maryland Marriage group unsuccessfully
pushed this year for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"It will not go away in the short term because I don't think either side will be
satisfied."
In January, Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock sided
with the 19 gay and lesbian plaintiffs in ruling that the state's marriage law
is discriminatory. That ignited an explosive debate within the General Assembly,
with some lawmakers hoping to take the question directly to the public with a
November referendum to ban gay marriage in the state's constitution.
The
attorney general's office immediately appealed Murdock's decision, and the Court
of Appeals agreed in July to hear the case.
Sun reporter Kelly Brewington contributed to this
article.
// return to previous page //
|
