Aug 26, 2005  |  By: EARTHA JANE MELZE  | COMMENTS     

Nine same-sex couples suing for the right to marry in Maryland will have their day in court on Aug. 30 when the Circuit Court in Baltimore takes up Deane & Polyak vs. Conaway.

The 18 plaintiffs, joined in the case by a gay man whose partner died, claim that by denying them the right to marry, Maryland is violating the state’s constitutional guarantee of equality.

The ACLU of Maryland and Equality Maryland, a statewide gay rights group, plan to hold a rally in support of the plaintiffs on Aug. 30 in front of the Mitchell Courthouse, which houses the Baltimore Circuit Court, between 10 a.m. and noon.

“Basically it’s the first round of what we see as a long struggle,” said Meredith Moise, field organizer for Equality Maryland. “This is not going to happen overnight, but we are confident that we will prevail.”

“I know many in the gay community are optimistic about marriage and our rights to the license. … Our families need protection just like everybody else, and our families are entitled to protection.”

Moise accused opponents of same-sex marriage of spreading the false claim that if gay couples are granted marriage licenses, then religious ministers would be forced to perform same-sex marriages in Maryland churches, synagogues and mosques.

‘They are families’
“Our clients represent a broad cross-section of Marylanders, they come from different socio-economic statuses, races, different geographic areas of the state,” according to David Rocah, an attorney with the Maryland ACLU, who represents the group seeking marriage rights. “They are families in every meaningful sense of the word … yet the state chooses to create this legal fiction and treat them as legal strangers. This is harmful to them.”

Rocah said that the arguments in this case would be similar in structure to those that challenged the so-called miscegenation statutes that prohibited marriages between people of different races until 1967. Back then, some argued that the laws were not discriminatory because both black and white people were prohibited from marrying someone from the other race.

“But the Supreme Court held in Loving vs. Virginia that that violated the equal protection clause,” Rocah said. “Just as those arguments were rejected in race context, we think they should be rejected in this case as well.

Opponents organize
On its Web site, “Defend Maryland Marriage,” the Association of Maryland Families called on residents to organize against marriage rights for gay couples.

“We are committed to not remain silent as the homosexual agenda attempts to overtake the laws and social order of Maryland,” the statement reads.

Doug Stiegler, executive director of the Association of Maryland Families, said he is uncomfortable with the idea that a judge will decide whether or not gays can get married and that he would prefer that marriage rights for gays be put to a vote.

Stiegler said that some churches will hold prayer rallies and events on Aug. 30 in response to the court case and that he believes the publicity around the case will cause more people to join in opposing marriage rights for gays.

“We just think that it is unfortunate that this issue has gotten to this point. I think there are many ways that the homosexual community can do the sorts of things they need without changing marriage,” Stiegler said.

Stiegler conceded that gay rights activists made a strong point when they described the problems gay couples face in ensuring they can participate in making medical decisions with their partners.

Earlier this year, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Medical Decision Making Act, which would have established a life partner registry in the state and granted some medical decision making rights to registered partners.

The Medical Decision Making Act was vetoed by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., who said that recognizing life partners “could lead to the erosion of the sanctity of traditional marriage as already codified in Maryland law.”

Maryland’s family code defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

In a brief filed in support of the plaintiffs, 25 religious organizations and 48 religious leaders warned the judge of the hazards of attempting to mix church and state in the context of marriage.

“If the religious doctrine of some is used to justify discrimination in access to the relationship of civil marriage,” the group wrote, “then the government is not protecting the free exercise of religion by all.”