Gay couples Tuesday denounced Maryland?s Court of Appeals ruling that marriage must be between a man and a woman, calling on state lawmakers to grant them equal family protections.
In the 4-3 ruling that reversed a 2006 Baltimore City Circuit Court decision, high court judges said the state?s interest in “fostering procreation” and “encouraging the traditional family structure” is a legitimate governmental function. The ruling comes after court clerks in Baltimore and elsewhere in the state denied the marriage licenses of nine same-sex couples in 2004, prompting a lawsuit filed in part by the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland, a gay rights group.
“This ruling is a slap in my face,” said Kevin-Douglas Olive, a Baltimore City middle school teacher who has been fighting the family of his late partner over his burial for three years. “This is the exact thing the court could have stopped from happening in the future.”
One dissenting judge, Irma S. Raker, said the General Assembly should either be required to adopt civil unions or marriage. Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and Judge Lynn A. Battaglia said the case should be sent back to the lower court for a trial.
A House of Delegates committee in March rejected Republican-backed legislation banning gay marriage. The 110-page ruling released Tuesday does not preclude legislators from revisiting the issue.
“They aren?t asking for religious establishments to bless the marriage,” said Del. Victor Ramirez, D-Prince George?s. “They are asking for the rights to visit their partners in a hospital, to have duties of financial support for children and eligibility for health benefits ? certain rights they should be entitled to.”
Opponents to same-sex marriage said the state?s equal rights amendment governed relations between men and women, not between members of the same sex.
Richard Dowling, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, called many discrimination claims “red herrings,” saying most hospitals already allow partners visitation rights and authority over medical decisions, for example.
“I don?t think the court really did anything extra or surprising,” Dowling said “… Constitutional precedence is clear.”
Join the discussion and take our poll in today’s examiNation Baltimore: What do you think of the state’s ban on gay marriage?
