With
the
legislative
session
concluding
next
week,
gay
Marylanders
are
turning
their
attention
to
the
state’s
high
court
and
a
marriage
case
that
could
redefine
their
lives.
“We’re
still
anxiously
waiting,”
said
Patrick
Wojahn,
who
is
gay
and
lives
in
College
Park,
Md.
“We
know
it
could
come
down
any
day
now.”
Wojahn
and
his
partner,
Dave
Kolesar,
are
among
the
19
plaintiffs
who
are
waiting
for
the
Maryland
Court
of
Appeals
to
rule
on
the
case,
which
seeks
to
overturn
a
state
law
that
bars
same-sex
marriage.
Nine
gay
and
lesbian
couples
and
a
gay
man
whose
partner
died
asked
the
court
to
review
a
lower
court’s
ruling
that
struck
down
a
1973
state
law
limiting
marriage
to
opposite-sex
couples.
Baltimore
City
Circuit
Court
Judge
M.
Brooke
Murdock
ruled
in
January
2006
that
denying
same-sex
couples
the
right
to
marry
violates
the
state
constitution’s
Equal
Rights
Amendment,
which
bars
discrimination
based
on
gender.
Murdock’s
decision
is
on
hold
while
the
higher
court
reviews
the
ruling.
A
decision
in
the
case,
known
as
Conaway
v.
Deane,
could
come
at
any
time.
“God
only
knows,”
Wojahn
said.
“It
could
be
tomorrow,
it
could
be
a
year
from
now.”
The
high
court
takes
an
average
of
just
under
four
months
to
issue
its
rulings.
Had
it
adhered
to
that
timetable,
a
decision
would
have
come
this
week.
But
Ken
Choe,
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
attorney
who
represented
the
19
plaintiffs,
said
it’s
impossible
to
predict
when
Maryland’s
high
court
will
issue
a
ruling.
The
high
court
in
Washington
state
announced
its
decision
more
than
16
months
after
oral
arguments
were
made.
A
decision
in
New
York,
though,
came
after
just
two
months
of
judicial
deliberation.
“In
other
states,
these
marriage
cases
tend
to
defy
averages,”
he
said.
“So
it’s
hard
to
look
to
that
law
of
averages
here
and
see
that
as
a
good
barometer
as
to
when
that
[decision]
might
come
down.”
Outcome
unpredictable
Also
impossible
to
predict,
legal
experts
said,
is
the
case’s
outcome.
Barbara
Babb,
director
of
the
Center
for
Families,
Children
&
the
Courts
at
the
University
of
Baltimore,
said
there
have
been
few
indications
of
how
the
court
will
rule.
“We
have
judges
who
are
very
equality
conscious,”
she
said.
“That’s
who
they
are
as
human
beings
and
that’s
how
they’ve
ruled
in
prior
decisions.
On
the
other
hand,
Maryland
is
a
state
that
clings
to
its
sort
of
traditional,
ecclesiastical
roots,
so
it’s
really
hard
to
determine
where
they’ll
come
out
on
this.”
Dan
Friedman,
a
state
constitutional
law
expert
and
University
of
Maryland
law
school
professor,
agreed.
He
noted
that
even
the
court’s
lack
of
questions
during
the
Dec.
4
oral
arguments
gave
no
clues.
“I
always
caution
folks
about
reading
too
much
into
the
questioning
of
the
bench,”
Friedman
said.
“So
I
would
caution
reading
too
much
into
the
lack
of
questions.”
Experts
said
perhaps
the
only
real
indicator
of
how
the
court
might
rule
in
Conaway
v.
Deane
comes
from
how
it’s
previously
decided
equality
issues.
And
in
that
regard,
Choe
said,
Maryland’s
high
court
has
ruled
favorably.
“That
suggests
this
court
is
open
to
considering
fairly
issues
of
LGBT
people,”
he
said.
“Whether
that
translates
into
success
in
this
case,
of
course,
is
far
from
certain.”
Experts
said
precedent
exists
in
Maryland
law
to
overturn
the
state’s
ban
on
same-sex
marriage.
In
a
brief
filed
with
the
high
court,
Friedman
and
more
than
50
other
law
professors
and
faculty
members
from
the
universities
of
Maryland
and
Baltimore
reviewed
previous
case
rulings
that
could
support
such
a
ruling.
The
brief
says
the
ban
is
unconstitutional
because
it
conflicts
with
the
ERA,
which
says,
“equality
of
rights
under
the
law
shall
not
be
abridged
or
denied
because
of
sex.”
State
laws
that
define
marriage
as
the
exclusive
union
of
one
man
and
one
woman
are
therefore
unconstitutional,
the
brief
says,
because
they
present
“an
unjustified
sex-based
classification
that
rests
on
impermissible
gender
stereotypes
and
enforces
state-mandated
gender
roles.”
“There
are
many
forms
of
gender
discrimination,”
Choe
said.
“One
of
which
is
the
perpetuation
of
gender
stereotypes.”
Friedman
notes
in
the
brief
two
cases
—
one
from
1977
and
another
from
1998
—
wherein
the
Maryland
high
court
was
plain
in
its
interpretation
of
the
ERA.
“The
words
of
the
ERA
are
clear
and
unambiguous,”
says
the
1977
ruling.
“They
say
without
equivocation
that
equality
of
rights
under
the
law
shall
not
be
abridged
or
denied
because
of
sex.
This
language
mandating
equality
of
rights
can
only
mean
that
sex
is
not
a
factor.”
Choe
said
Maryland
courts
previously
invoked
the
ERA
in
rulings
that
rendered
the
state’s
child
support
and
child
custody
laws
sex
blind.
“In
many
ways,”
he
said,
“this
would
be
the
last
step
in
making
domestic
[and]
family
law
truly
sex
blind.”
No
guarantees
Despite
that
precedent,
experts
said
the
19
plaintiffs
are
not
guaranteed
to
win.
Babb,
who
decided
against
signing
Friedman’s
brief
partly
because
she
“had
trouble
following”
some
of
its
arguments,
said
the
high
court
doesn’t
support
ERA
cases
as
readily
as
the
document
portrays.
“When
they’ve
addressed
other
issues
within
the
context
of
the
ERA
—
I’m
not
sure
that’s
as
definitive
as
it
sounds,”
she
said.
“I
don’t
think
that
makes
it
a
clear
winner
in
my
mind.”
State
attorneys
combating
Choe
in
court
emphasized
those
deficiencies.
In
a
brief
to
the
high
court,
former
state
Attorney
General
J.
Joseph
Curran
Jr.
wrote
that
the
lower
court’s
ruling
should
be
reversed
because
“it
conflicts
with
all
valid
decisions
of
federal
courts
and
state
appellate
courts
that
have
considered
the
issue.”
It
also
cites
seven
instances
from
1980
to
1988
where
the
high
court
unquestioningly
accepted
and
used
the
language
defining
marriage
as
“a
union
between
a
man
and
a
woman”
in
its
rulings.
“As
recently
as
2002,”
the
brief
says,
“this
court
confirmed
its
own
understanding
that
Maryland
law
does
not
...
