PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD  |  WHERE TO FIND THE BLADE    |   WASHBLADE ON MYSPACE    |   RSS  
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008
 
Please login or create a new account
  ?
Holiday Gift Guide - Issue One
HOME
CLASSIFIEDS
AUTO GUIDE

THE LATEST
BLADEWIRE
BLADEBLOG
BLOGWATCH
NEWS
 LOCAL
 NATIONAL
 WORLD NEWS
 VIEWPOINT
 ENTERTAINMENT
 ECLIPSE
 OUT IN DC
 CALENDARS
 FITNESS BY GENRE
 BITCH SESSION














EMAIL UPDATES
New to email
updates? Then click here to find out more.
email address

subscribe
unsubscribe
I have read and agree to our terms
and conditions
.


ADVERTISING
GENERAL INFO
E-EDITION
MARKETING

ABOUT US
ABOUT THE BLADE
MASTHEAD
EMPLOYMENT

 

 

 

MORE INFO

MORE INFO
Equality Maryland
8121 Georgia Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-587-7500
www.equalitymaryland.org

Association of Maryland Families
8028 Ritchie Hwy., Suite 315
Pasadena, MD 21122
410-760-9161
www.mdfamilies.org





Printer-friendly Version

Letter to the Editor

Sound Off about this article







 

MORE LOCAL

Catania may push marriage bill in Jan.
Some fear time isn’t right after Prop 8’s success

Equality Md. names new executive director
Lesbian will ‘move forward with marriage equality’ in state

Two gay Obama supporters assaulted near White House

D.C. Council to hold hearing on hate crimes

D.C. police shoot, kill gay man in townhouse

Local news in brief
22 gay incumbents re-elected to ANCs

Obituary
Bill Gillespie, 62

Police log


LOCAL

Md. gay couples get a day in court
Judge presses state to explain harm of same-sex marriage


Friday, September 02, 2005

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 ...

continued on next page


1  |  2

 

email   password
The following comments were posted by our readers and were not edited by the Washington Blade.  We ask that you treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will be removed.


 

national | local | world | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy