BALTIMORE
—
Nine
gay
Maryland
couples
and
one
man
whose
partner
died
finally
had
their
day
in
court
Tuesday,
when
the
Baltimore
Circuit
Court
heard
arguments
in
a
marriage
equality
case
that
is
being
watched
closely
by
advocates
on
both
sides
of
the
issue
around
the
country.
The
suit,
Deane
and
Polyak
vs.
Conaway,
was
filed
in
July
2004
by
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union.
It
challenges
the
constitutionality
of
a
1973
Maryland
provision
that
limits
marriage
to
a
man
and
a
woman,
according
to
David
Rocah,
an
attorney
with
the
ACLU
working
on
the
case.
It
could
take
a
couple
of
months
for
the
judge
to
issue
a
ruling,
which
will
likely
be
appealed
whichever
side
prevails.
“I
just
don’t
look
at
it
as
good
for
our
society,”
said
Rick
Bowers,
chair
of
Defend
Maryland
Marriage,
shortly
before
arguments
started.
“It’s
just
wrong
scripturally.”
Once
the
hearing
began,
Kenneth
Choe,
an
attorney
for
the
plaintiffs,
implored
the
judge
to
examine
when
courts
have
intervened
to
correct
once
acceptable,
but
unconstitutional,
forms
of
discrimination,
like
bans
on
interracial
marriage.
“The
fundamental
right
to
marry
is
not
only
enjoyed
by
those
who
historically
enjoyed
the
right
to
marry,”
Choe
told
the
court.
“History
often
shows
there
was
persistent
discrimination.
That
does
not
absolve
the
court
to
examine
the
constitutionality
in
the
here
and
now.”
Attorneys
for
the
state
asked
that
the
issue
be
left
to
the
legislature
and
said
there
was
not
enough
known
about
the
societal
impact
of
same-sex
marriage
to
assess
its
consequences.
Assistant
Attorney
General
Steven
M.
Sullivan
said
the
state
prefers
to
take
a
“step
by
step
approach.”
After
the
hearing,
Lisa
Polyak,
a
plaintiff
in
the
case,
took
issue
with
Sullivan’s
argument.
In
Loving
vs.
Virginia,
a
case
cited
often
by
Choe,
it
took
30
years
for
the
majority
of
Americans
to
agree
with
the
Supreme
Court
ruling
that
permitted
whites
and
blacks
to
marry,
Polyak
pointed
out.
“Was
it
appropriate
to
wait?”
Polyak
said.
Gita
Deane,
her
partner
and
fellow
plaintiff,
interjected,
“Is
it
appropriate
to
vote
on
civil
rights?”
When
asked
to
respond
to
the
opponents’
view
that
“activist
judges”
should
not
decide
marriage
rights,
Polyak
said,
“We
went
to
the
legislature
[for
the
vetoed
Medical
Decision
Making
Act.]
We
had
support
from
both
parties.
It
took
one
person
to
undo
all
that.
What
course
do
we
have?”
The
state
also
argued
that
permitting
gays
the
right
to
marry
would
put
Maryland
at
odds
with
the
federal
government,
triggering
a
crisis.
But
Choe
pointed
out
that
there
are
several
areas
in
which
state
and
federal
law
conflict
and
that
there
has
been
no
“crisis”
in
Vermont
and
Massachusetts,
where
civil
unions
and
marriages
are
permitted
respectively.
“The
legislation
has
broad
authority,
but
it
is
not
unchecked,”
Choe
said.
Their
laws
must
not
violate
the
state
or
federal
constitution,
he
added.
The
state’s
ban
on
same-sex
marriage
constitutes
discrimination
based
on
sexual
orientation,
as
well
as
sex
because
it
is
the
person’s
gender
that
prohibits
the
right
to
marry,
Choe
said.
“It’s
no
defense
that
the
law
equally
burdens
males
and
females,”
he
said.
“Whether
a
man
can
marry
a
man
turns
on
sex.”
Cutting
through
all
the
legalese,
Judge
M.
Brooke
Murdock
asked
the
state’s
attorney
Sullivan
a
question
repeatedly
posed
by
gay
rights
advocates:
“What
is
the
tangible
harm”
of
allowing
gays
to
marry?
Sullivan
did
not
directly
answer
the
question,
causing
Murdoch
to
say
that
absent
“tangible
harm”
it
was
difficult
to
comprehend
the
“rational
basis
for
opposing
this.”
Later
Sullivan
told
the
judge
that
if
hearings
were
held
in
Annapolis
on
the
issue,
then
harm
could
be
demonstrated.
“They
never
articulate
the
harm,”
said
Polyak
after
the
arguments.
“I’m
waiting
for
the
answer
to
that
question.”
When
Doug
Stiegler,
executive
director
of
the
Association
of
Maryland
Families,
was
asked
to
explain
the
harm
caused
by
same-sex
marriage,
he
said
it
would
discriminate
against
children
who
need
a
mother
and
father.
“That’s
a
wrong
situation,”
he
said
outside
the
courthouse.
“Those
kids
are
not
in
a
right
environment.”
He
said
that
the
country
was
based
on
“moral
laws,
God’s
laws,
God’s
rights”
and
that
the
separation
of
church
and
state
is
a
“figment
of
people’s
imagination.”
The
plaintiffs
endeavored
to
show
the
damage
done
to
them
and
their
families
by
Maryland’s
family
law
barring
same-sex
marriage.
For
instance,
when
Polyak’s
partner,
Gita
Deane,
was
in
labor,
the
anesthesiologist
refused
to
administer
the
epidural
until
Lisa
left
the
room.
When
her
partner
was
pregnant
with
their
second
child
they
went
to
great
lengths
to
ensure
the
hospital
staff
knew
they
were
a
family,
she
said.
They
met
with
an
attorney
and
prepared
an
advanced
directive,
as
well
as
a
birth
plan.
But,
she
said,
one
doctor
dismissed
all
of
that
planning.
Dan
Furmansky,
executive
director
of
Equality
Maryland,
a
statewide
gay
rights
group,
listed
the
obstacles
faced
by
each
of
the
plaintiffs
at
a
news
conference
outside
the
courtroom.
“Stacey
was
treated
like
a
stranger
and
denied
access
to
her
own
son
during
a
medical
emergency
after
he
was
born.
Charles
and
Glen
...
