ANNAPOLIS,
Md.
—
Legal
experts
familiar
with
the
Maryland
marriage
lawsuit,
which
went
to
the
state’s
highest
court
this
week,
said
gay
rights
supporters
made
a
strong
argument,
but
judges
offered
few
clues
as
to
how
they
might
rule
in
the
high-profile
case.
Evan
Wolfson,
director
of
Freedom
to
Marry,
said
the
seven
Court
of
Appeals
judges
might
consider
cultural
factors
in
addition
to
weighing
the
legal
arguments.
“I
think
how
the
court
rules
will,
in
part,
depend
on
the
climate
we
create
that
enables
the
court
to
do
the
right
thing,”
he
said.
“The
court
does
not
operate
in
a
vacuum.”
Opponents
of
same-sex
marriage
said
if
the
court
takes
cultural
attitudes
into
consideration,
then
their
side
will
win.
“I
think,
clearly,
the
majority
of
the
people
in
this
state
support
a
constitutional
marriage
amendment,”
said
Republican
Del.
Don
Dwyer,
who
wants
to
amend
the
Maryland
Constitution
to
ban
same-sex
marriage.
“I
think
that,
quite
honestly,
as
we
look
at
this
issue,”
he
said,
“I
think
the
court
will
ultimately
send
it
back
to
the
legislature
for
a
decision,
since
we’re
dealing
with
the
definition
of
marriage.”
Nine
gay
and
lesbian
couples
asked
the
Maryland
Court
of
Appeals
this
week
to
overturn
a
state
law
that
bans
same-sex
marriage.
The
couples,
along
with
a
gay
man
whose
partner
died,
asked
the
court
to
review
a
lower
court’s
ruling
earlier
this
year
that
struck
down
a
1973
state
law
limiting
marriage
to
opposite-sex
couples.
Baltimore
City
Circuit
Court
Judge
M.
Brooke
Murdock
ruled
Jan.
20
that
denying
same-sex
couples
the
right
to
marry
violates
the
state
constitution’s
Equal
Rights
Amendment,
which
bans
discrimination
based
on
gender.
Murdock’s
decision
is
on
hold
while
the
higher
court
reviews
her
ruling.
A
decision
in
the
case,
known
as
Deane
v.
Conaway,
could
come
from
the
high
court
at
any
time.
ACLU:
Marriage
a
basic
right
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
attorney
Kenneth
Choe,
who
represented
the
19
plaintiffs,
argued
at
Monday’s
hearing
that
marriage
is
a
“fundamental
right.”
He
said
the
right
should
be
available
to
all
Marylanders,
regardless
of
sexual
orientation.
“Fundamental
rights
belong
to
all
Marylanders,”
Choe
said.
“It
is
not
enough
that
there
is
a
reason
for
including
the
included
class.
There
must
also
be
a
reason
for
excluding
the
excluded
class.”
But
Court
of
Appeals
Judge
Dale
Cathell
said
that
Choe
sought
to
“redefine
marriage.”
Cathell
also
denied
any
infringement
of
the
Equal
Rights
Amendment.
“If
marriage
is
defined
as
a
relationship
between
people
of
the
opposite
sex,”
he
said,
“then
people
of
the
same
sex
would
have
the
same
right
to
marry,
if
they
wanted
to
marry
someone
of
the
opposite
sex.”
Choe
said
the
plaintiffs
nonetheless
believe
they
have
a
right
to
marry
their
partners.
“The
plaintiffs
would
have
the
court
focus
on
the
right
to
marry,”
he
said.
“The
state
would
have
the
court
focus
on
the
right
to
marry
a
person
of
the
same
sex.”
Wolfson
said
Choe’s
rebuttal
echoed
the
arguments
that
overturned
bans
on
interracial
marriage.
“The
point
is
individuals
are
being
restricted
based
on
who
they
are
and
who
they
love,”
he
said,
“and
that
restriction
is
what
runs
afoul
of
the
Constitution.”
State:
Let
lawmakers
decide
State
attorneys
countered
in
court
that
changes
to
state
law
should
come
from
the
legislature,
not
the
courts.
“The
General
Assembly
can
do
the
job
with
respect
to
state
benefits
and
state
rights,”
said
Assistant
Attorney
General
Robert
Zarnoch.
“And
we
suggest
they
are
the
proper
forum
to
deal
with
these
kinds
of
issues.”
Zarnoch
also
noted
that
Maryland’s
same-sex
couples
are
not
allowed
to
marry
because
they
cannot
procreate,
an
act
he
argued
was
central
to
marriage.
Court
of
Appeals
Judge
Lynne
Battaglia,
however,
challenged
Zarnoch
on
that
point.
“Could
the
state
tomorrow,
then,
prohibit
marriage
between
a
sterile
woman
and
a
man?”
she
said.
“And,
let’s
do
it
in
terms
of
age,
because
there’s
a
certain
period
of
time
after
which
a
woman,
biologically,
cannot
have
children.”
Zarnoch
said
sterile
women
remain
eligible
for
marriage
because
the
state
cannot
constitutionally
stop
them.
“The
state
really
cannot
make
inquiry
of
opposite-sex
couples,
as
to
their
intentions
of
having
children,
or
whether
they’re
fit
or
capable
of
having
children,”
he
said.
“There’s
no
way
to
make
that
inquiry
constitutionally,
because
you
would
be
violating
their
privacy.”
Despite
the
challenge
Battaglia
posed,
same-sex
marriage
opponents
were
confident
they
would
prevail.
“I,
personally,
hold
fast
to
the
concept
that
marriage
was
designed
by
God
for
a
man
and
a
woman,”
said
Rick
Bowers,
who
leads
Defend
Maryland
Marriage.
“And
no
man
has
the
authority
to
rewrite
that.”
‘Open
up
your
hearts’
Equality
Maryland
Executive
Director
Dan
Furmansky
said
the
case’s
19
plaintiffs
aren’t
seeking
to
redefine
marriage.
“They
want
the
state
of
Maryland
to
open
up
legal
marriage
to
them,”
he
said,
“and
to
let
them
be
a
full
part
of
their
communities
and
of
this
state.”
Furmansky
said
he
hoped
the
judges
would
“look
toward
fairness
and
justice”
for
same-sex
couples.
“We
ask
our
fellow
Marylanders
today
to
walk
a
mile
in
our
shoes,”
he
said.
“We
ask
you
to
open
up
your
hearts,
and
to
help
us
to
protect
our
children,
to
help
us
to
live
longer,
to
help
us
to
be
happier
and
healthier
and
to
help
...
