Ruling declares law violated constitutional guarantee of equal rights; state attorney general files appeal

Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich voices his disappointment that a Baltimore judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

BALTIMORE A Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old state law against same-sex marriage on Jan. 20, declaring it violates the Maryland Constitution's guarantee of equal rights.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock immediately stayed her order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The attorney's general office did so later in the day.

Murdock ruled in favor of 19 gay men and women, rejecting a state argument that the traditional family is ideal for children.

"Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory law," she wrote.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in 2004 by the American Civil Liberties Union. It named court clerks in Baltimore and four counties as defendants and challenged the 1973 state law defining marriage.

"This is such an exciting moment," said Lisa Polyak, a plaintiff with 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."

GLBT rights advocates around the country also applauded the ruling.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director for Equality California, said Judge Murdock's ruling "is consistent with previous rulings in favor of marriage equality, and we anticipate that any appeal will be soundly rejected."

"When courts examine the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, we expect them to rule on the side of fairness and justice," said Kors, whose own state has seen similar battles.

A similar lawsuit is making its way through the California court system, and a trial court judge has already ruled that the gay marriage ban there violates that state's constitution.

The California Legislature approved a measure last year to allow same-sex marriage the first state government to do so without being forced by the courts.

But Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger eventually vetoed the bill.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign Fund called Judge Murdock's ruling "a major step for Maryland families" and said it "puts the state on the right track for fairness."

Solmonese also praised the work of Equality Maryland and the ACLU of Maryland for "pushing the rights of these plaintiff couples who, on behalf of all of Maryland's families, are making a strong case for equality."

Maryland's Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich said he was disappointed by the ruling. The governor said that his staff is weighing options, including seeking a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which is the definition under state law.

A day prior to the ruling, Governor Ehrlich had proposed some limited medical decision making rights for unmarried couples, offering a bill that his staff said keeps a commitment he made nine months ago when he vetoed a more expansive piece of legislation dealing with gay and straight unmarried couples.

The bill would set up a statewide registry where people could list advance directives on how they wish to be treated in end-of-life situations.

The medical decision-making bill that Ehrlich vetoed last year had been passed by lawmakers after contentious battles in the House and Senate. It would have given unmarried couples that registered as life partners the same rights as married couples in dealing with health care issues, from riding in ambulances to deciding when to pull the plug on life support systems for terminally ill patients.

In his veto message, Ehrlich said the bill had "the noble goals of ensuring that couples have access to important health-related decisions."

But, he said, it would have codified "a new relationship of life partner and could lead to the erosion of the sanctity of traditional marriage as already codified in Maryland law."

Along with the argument for preserving the traditional family unit, lawyers for the state of Maryland had said the issue was a question for the Legislature rather than for courts to be deciding.

The judge said she was "unable to find that preventing same-sex marriage rationally relates to Maryland's interest in promoting the best interests of children."

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, a Democrat, said he believes the ruling will 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."

Douglas Stiegler, who heads two groups opposed to same-sex marriage, the Family Protection Lobby and the Association of Maryland Families, said he believes the matter was outside the judge's jurisdiction and needs to be addressed by the Legislature.

Stiegler supports a proposed constitutional amendment in the House of Delegates to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

"We're upset that she made this decision, but at the same time it just points out why the bill is needed," he said.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition of January 27, 2006.