Nov 03, 2006  |  By: JOSHUA LYNSEN  | COMMENTS     

A New Jersey court decision mandating equal marriage rights for gay couples could influence the outcome of a similar case pending in Maryland, according to local observers.

Although the Maryland Court of Appeals is not bound by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling of Oct. 25, legal observers said the decision could impact the Maryland case.

“I think it will have more of an effect psychologically,” said Barbara Babb, director of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts at the University of Baltimore.

The Maryland Court of Appeals is scheduled to review on Dec. 4 a lower court’s ruling that a 1973 state law limiting marriage to heterosexuals is unconstitutional.

Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Brooke Murdock ruled in January that Maryland’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The decision will not take effect until the appeals process is exhausted.

The lawsuit, Deane v. Conaway, was filed in July 2004 by the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland. Nine gay Maryland couples and one man whose partner died are parties to the lawsuit.

Babb said the Maryland Court of Appeals will likely review marriage case rulings issued by many high courts, and any such decision could have an influence.

But she said the New Jersey ruling could have greater sway because Maryland is similar to New Jersey when it comes to residents’ opinions on social issues.

“New Jersey, in many ways, is not that different from Maryland,” she said. “In terms of a state that’s more representative … it’s probably easier for Maryland courts to understand or identify with this court’s ruling.”

Other case observers said the New Jersey case could have different ramifications.

Lisa Polyak of Baltimore, partner of the Maryland case’s lead plaintiff, Gita Deane, said last week’s ruling could prompt the local court to resolve the issue.

“To the extent that another court found merit in the question,” Polyak said, “that will drive them to answer the question as well.”

But she said it’s impossible to gauge exactly how much the New Jersey ruling will influence the seven judges on the Maryland Court of Appeals.

“It’s important for them to look around and see where other precedents have been established,” Polyak said. “However, they are bound to consider the question in the context of Maryland’s constitution.”

Gays in Connecticut and Vermont can enter into civil unions, and those in California and Hawaii can register as domestic partners, but they can’t get married.

Some 45 states have passed laws banning gay marriage. Efforts by congressional Republicans to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning states from marrying gay couples failed this year in both the Senate and the House.

Raising false hopes?

Reactions to the New Jersey ruling from local activists varied.

Gay marriage supporter Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, praised the decision and noted that the case holds some important similarities to Maryland’s case.

“Like New Jersey, we argue the fundamental right to marry,” he said. “Like New Jersey, we argue under our state’s so-called equal protection clause.”

But gay marriage opponent Rick Bowers, chair of Defend Maryland Marriage, said the parallels are inconsequential.

“Personally, I’d like to believe judges are independent thinkers and are pledged to uphold the state constitution,” he said, “and not look at which direction the winds might be blowing as a means to make a decision that would affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.”

Bowers said comparisons of the New Jersey and Maryland cases raise false hopes for gay Marylanders because the New Jersey decision was flawed.

“It accomplished nothing, it just confuses the issue, and it keeps a lot of very good people in a state of flux,” Bowers said. “By that, I mean the homosexuals who believe they are one step closer, but really aren’t.”

Furmansky disagreed. He said gays in New Jersey are one step closer to attaining equal marriage rights, which the court ordered state lawmakers to enact within six months.

“The ruling itself, I think, will be less important than what happens in the legislature in New Jersey over the next 180 days,” he said. “Certainly, a legislative win of civil marriage only enhances our own prospects here in Maryland.”

Furmansky said the New Jersey court’s decision to stop short of calling gay unions marriage is ultimately unimportant, because gay couples gained equal rights.

“We don’t need to call it marriage,” he said. “And I don’t think there’s any gay person out there who would be upset to have a civil union, as long as that’s what everybody else had.

“We don’t want special rights — we want the same damn rights everybody else has. And if the state insists on calling it a marriage license, we don’t want to be excluded from the same legal institution that other couples have.”