Md. Judge Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban

WCBSTV ^

[Sub-Driver]

Md. Judge Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban

(AP) BALTIMORE A judge on Friday struck down a 33-year-old Maryland law against same-sex marriage, agreeing with 19 gay men and women that it violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal rights.

The ruling by Judge M. Brooke Murdock rejected a state argument that the government had a legitimate interest in protecting the traditional family unit of heterosexual parents.

"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 judge immediately stayed her order to give the state time to file an expected appeal in Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

"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," Polyak said.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich's lawyers were reviewing the ruling, his spokesman Henry Fawell said. The Republican governor has said he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.

[AZ_Cowboy]

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

All laws discriminate in one way or another. That is the nature of the beast.

[conserv13]

Defense of self and family

How does gay people getting married hurt yourself or your family?

[Muleteam1]

>>The more this gets shoved in folks faces by judges, the more likely a major backlash is.<<

I agree. It's only a matter of time. Having once lived in Maryland this news doesn't surprise me. Someday Santa Fe will do the same in New Mexico if the backlash doesn't occur first.

Muleteam1

[IranIsNext]

The slippery slide into Hell continues for America.
Who cares? Let them get married if they want to.

If they want to get married they are going to have to change the law. The old fashioned way that is, aka call your senator. Apparently they know that road just isn't going to get them anywhere, at least no fast enough. So lets just fast track things through the courts they figure.

[IranIsNext]

Grr meant to put quote marks around that top part.

[conserv13]

Yeah, I see your point. I hope MD has a refernedum on it. This will be an issue in the Governor's race.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I think it will be a harder sell in NM. We had a county clerk that was issuing licenses to "couples" and the heavily Dim controlled state govt shut that down super quick. They know a losing deal.

[Tijeras_Slim]

PS: I grew up in MD, albiet the Eastern Shore.

[IranIsNext]

"To say a person was "discriminating" used to be a compliment, as in "discriminating" (i.e., refined) taste.

"Indiscriminate" used to be an inuslt. As in "indicsriminate" choice of sexual partners. Oops . . ."

Indeed. When you get these people in the West Coast region plucking death cap mushrooms for dinner because they look similar to an edible mushroom in Asia.. Oops. They were being indiscriminate.

[Andy'smom]

She sounds like Maryland's answer to Margaret Marshall. What's the supreme court there like?

[NapkinUser]

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."

Seriously, I don't get why anyone here would get bent out of shape over this. Regardless of this judge's ruling, it was going to end up in the Maryland state supreme, and that court is not going to uphold this. The judge even issued a stay on her ruling until the state supreme court hears and rules on the case. Hype over nothing.

[jwalsh07]

The hype is simply the continuing saga of activist courts and lunatic judges. People are sick of them.

[cvq3842]

I understand the question - it's a fair one, and I'll try my best to respond.

I do believe in live and let live. I sometimes get into tussles here with folks who might be more "socially conservative" than I am, but that's where I come out. It's not my job to keep anyone else from going to hell, if that's what people think other folks are headed for. I guarantee you, my views on abortion (posted somewhere here) manage to alienate about 98% of readers, here and elsewhere. I am deeply troubled by assisted suicide but receptive to the argument that the federal government does not have the power to regulate it through the FDA/doctor licensing laws.

I think the first issue is that it is improper for the court to impose gay marriage on its own. I see the issue as not "gay and straight" but "man and woman." Man and women are equal. they are not identical. They're a matched set! I don't see the basis for a judge to impose gay marriage without sweeping away all other distinctions between men and women.

That's the legal argument. Let the legislatures decide.

As far as that goes, legally the people (through the legislatures) can enact whatever they want. I think that marriage was given legal recognition, protection and benefits because society has decided, all things being equal, that a child is better off with its two biological parents. Discriminatory? Well, single people can't be discriminated against in housing or employment, but marriage by its very nature discriminates against single people - look at the tax benefits of marriage. Yes, many people who marry have no children. But infertility used to be grounds for divorce. Certainly with out-of-wedlock births the link between marriage and childbirth has been weakened. Has that been a good thing? People are concerned about the effect society's stamp of approval has on behavior. And again there are financial benefits conferred by society and the taxpayer. Somehow, when my friends on the left say about gay marriage "if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one" and I respond "if you don't like the Iraq war, don't fight it," the same logic doesn't carry over for them. People have a desire to have the actions and laws of the government mold a better society. Many behaviors, including alcoholism, may have a genetic component. If they are deemed harmful, most believe they should not be sanctioned by the government.

Also, what about bisexuals? What if science posits that some people are genetically more predisposed to having multiple partners? How does it affect you if your neighbor has six wives? How can we discriminate against them?

Just some thoughts. No offense is intended to anyone - this is as good a place as any to say that I am sometimes uncomfortable with some of the posts I see here. But there is a point to be made. Man, I sound pompous! oh well.

[cvq3842]

:)

[conserv13]

Thanks. I think the legislature should decide too.

The thing is that I know a few gay couples - one man-man and 2 woman-woman - and they are good people, assets to the communities where they live - and 1 couple are great parents to their adopted child. I see no problem with letting these folks get married.

[cvq3842]

I understand.

[FerdieMurphy]

Judge M. Brooke Murdock

There's a name to remember. I wonder what the "H" stands for? Probably like the "S" as in Harry S Truman. Nothing.

[conservativecorner]

More legislating from the bench I see. Tyrants in black robes!

[DBeers]

homosexual agenda ping!

I am assisting in pinging the list temporarily.

The ruling by Judge M. Brooke Murdock rejected a state argument that the government had a legitimate interest in protecting the traditional family unit of heterosexual parents.

This activist judicial legislator seems to miss the point that we the people are the government and we decide what is and what is not a legitimate interest. Activist judges deciding what they want based upon moral relative reasoning sometimes premised in foreign law precedence need to be retired and or kicked to the curb.

[CATravelAgent]

Maryland has just become Nancyland.