Is full marriage
equality on the horizon for gay and lesbian couples in
Maryland? It came one step closer to reality on Friday when
a circuit court judge declared a 33-year-old law
banning same-sex marriage in that state unconstitutional.
Baltimore city circuit court judge Brooke
Murdock sided with 19 gay men and women in their
lawsuit seeking marriage rights. The suit was
filed in 2004 with the American Civil Liberties Union and
Equality Maryland. "When tradition is the guise
under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a
legitimate state interest," Murdock wrote in her
ruling. "The court is not unaware of the dramatic
impact of its ruling, but it must not shy away from
deciding significant legal issues when fairly
presented to it for judicial determination."
Murdock put a stay on her decision in order
to allow the state time to appeal, which it
already has, said Paul Cates, director of public
education for the lesbian and gay rights project at the
ACLU. Both Cates and Steven Palmer, one of the
plaintiffs in the case, described this as a positive step.
"This is a good thing, because if there
was no appeal, the plaintiffs in the case would be the
only ones to get marriage licenses," said Palmer,
34, who sued the state with his 32-year old partner, Ryan
Killough. "Until the decision is appealed and
the [1973] law is fully struck down, we won't
have marriage rights for all Marylanders."
Palmer told Advocate.com that the impetus for
his joining the suit was a growing awareness of the
inequality of the situation. "Because my partner
and I are both in health care--I'm a flight
nurse, and Ryan is a paramedic--we see all the
rights and legal protections people get through
marriage, especially in terms of health care and coverage.
Right now we don't have any of that."
Same-sex marriage would be legalized in Maryland
if the state's high court of appeals upholds
Friday's decision, but according to Cates,
there's a possible hitch. If the plaintiff's
case is directed to an intermediate appeals court, it
would need to clear that court, in addition to the
high court of appeals, to become law.
"We don't know which court it will
go to," Cates said. "We'll probably
know in a few weeks or a month or so. It will probably be a
year before we have a [final] decision."
Cates added that the ACLU is prepared for a
negative backlash from far-right groups and
conservative lawmakers. "We think we can hold
legislation from passing any sort of amendment that might
disturb this ruling," he said.
Friday's victory came as Maryland's Republican
governor, Robert Ehrlich, announced a plan that would
allow domestic partners more power over medical
decisions for their significant others.
It remains unclear whether the governor's
legislation will influence the marriage case. Some
state Democrats were not happy, however, declaring
Ehrlich's move a political ploy because the
legislation lacks many protections and comes on the
heels of their successful attempt on Thursday to
change state rules making it harder for Republicans to enact
antigay laws.
"A bridal registry at Target would offer
same-sex couples more benefits than this watered-down
election-year ploy. It is simply an attempt to keep
the Medical Decision Making Act from being sent to
[Ehrlich's] desk again," said Eric Stern, executive director
of National Stonewall Democrats. "While Governor
Ehrlich plays politics in an effort to stop his
plummeting poll numbers, we'll continue to work with
Maryland Democrats on passing substantive legislation this session."
Maryland does not offer either civil or domestic
partnerships to same-sex couples, and
some gay rights groups hope that Friday's court
ruling means they can skip those legal classifications and
be allowed to legally marry. "If you want to
give people the same rights and legal protections as
heterosexual couples, keeping them separate with
domestic partnerships doesn't work," Palmer
said. "Separate is not equal, and it's not
acceptable." (Neal Broverman, Advocate.com)
