 |
 |
| Maryland marriage lawsuit plaintiffs Dave Kolesar (left) and Patrick Wojahn are ‘anxiously waiting’ for the state’s high court to rule on their challenge of state laws barring same-sex couples from marrying. (Photo courtesy of Kolesar and Wojahn) |
|
|
| | |
|
Maryland lawmakers granted gay residents new rights to sue in cases of discrimination in the legislative session’s closing days, but it was unclear whether they would tackle other gay issues.
Still pending at Blade deadline were votes on bills to require insurance companies to write policies that are inclusive of domestic partners and their children, and grant such partners the benefits of group life insurance.
Maryland’s first openly gay state senator, Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), said he didn’t appreciate his colleagues waiting to cast votes on the bills.
“I can’t say I completely appreciate this desire to wait on everything to the very end,” he said. “Especially on controversial issues or complex issues, it seems as though the desire is to push everything to the end and do everything at the last minute.”
The bill requiring inclusive insurance policies passed the House 104-30, while the group life insurance bill passed the Senate 38-8.
Lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn for the year April 9. Any bills not voted on by that time die by default.
Both chambers have, however, passed a bill that gives gays and others the right to sue locally for damages in cases of employment discrimination. The measure passed the House 137-0 and the Senate 39-8.
That action came after the legislature failed to pass a measure to bar discrimination against the state’s transgender residents and workers.
Madaleno said although activists have pledged to raise the issue again next year, it could be endangered.
“I’m just worried it could get totally lost next year,” he said. “It could be overwhelmed by a marriage debate and that people who would normally vote for it would say, ‘I’m already voting against the constitutional amendment, don’t make me vote for this too,’ which is one of the very frustrating parts of politics.”
Despite that, Madaleno said gay Marylanders shouldn’t overlook last month’s legislative defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“We continue to fight off a constitutional amendment, which you can’t say in many states that that’s the case,” he said. “I’m sure in Virginia, they’re trying to figure out how to come up with yet another constitutional amendment.”
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > LOCAL
By: JOSHUA LYNSEN COMMENTS
 
continued...
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 recognize unions of homosexuals or lesbians as ‘bestowing upon two people a legally cognizable marital status.’”
Friedman said Choe and the 19 plaintiffs must overcome these and many other challenges posed by state attorneys if they are to prevail.
“As an expert on the state constitution, I recognize that we are asking the court to apply these principles to a circumstance to which they’ve never been applied before,” he said. “But that’s part of the litigation process.”
And ultimately, Choe said, the high court may not fully agree with either side.
“It’s far from certain what the court is going to do,” he said. “We could win, we could lose, or, as we’ve seen in other states, we could get something in the middle.
“We certainly remain hopeful, but it’s hard to predict with any degree of certainty what the court will do.”
|
