Sep 21, 2007  |  By: JOSHUA LYNSEN  | COMMENTS     

In the wake of this week’s court ruling affirming Maryland’s ban on same-sex marriage, two state lawmakers are vowing to pursue the issue in Annapolis.

Sen. Gwendolyn Britt and Delegate Victor Ramirez, Democrats from Prince George’s County, said they will introduce measures in January to extend marriage to same-sex couples. The proposal would make valid unions of “two people.”

It’s unclear how state lawmakers would react to the proposals.

Some indicated they would support the measures, including gay Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County) and straight Del. Todd Schuler (D-Baltimore County). But Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat who opposes making marriage licenses gender-neutral, could veto any effort that survived an uphill fight in the Assembly.

Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, said in a post-ruling statement the organization would push lawmakers to grant full equality to gay couples.

“All lesbian and gay Marylanders, including the brave couples who petitioned the court in this case, need and deserve the protections and stability of marriage for our relationships and our families,” he said. “It is now time for the General Assembly to honor Maryland’s tradition of tolerance and justice and to strike down the ban on marriage for same-sex couples.”

Maryland’s highest court on Tuesday upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, ending a lawsuit filed in 2004 by 19 gay Marylanders who claimed they were being denied fundamental rights.

The plaintiffs won the first round in court. Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge 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.

Court of Appeals judges this week overturned that decision, 4-3, ruling that the state’s 1973 ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights. They also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.

But the decision, which overturned a lower court’s ruling, left open the possibility that legislators could still take action on the issue.

“Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex,” Judge Glenn Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

Ken Choe, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said his organization would work with Equality Maryland to win a legislative remedy.

“We and our partners in Maryland always knew that if we were not successful in the court, we would have to take our fight to another forum,” he said. “There is still a need for these families to have protections under the law.”

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County), who lives with her partner in Takoma Park, said she would do all she could to support that effort.

“We’re going to challenge hearts and minds on the issue in the General Assembly,” she said. “And we’re going to win.”

‘Beyond a travesty’

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, called the ruling a “disappointing and demeaning decision” that hurts gay Marylanders in a statement issued Tuesday.

“By overturning a lower court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the state’s own Equal Rights Amendment, the justices have turned their hearts and minds away from a simple reality: All of Maryland’s families want, need and deserve the protections, rights and responsibilities that support and sustain them in good and bad times,” he said.

Alexander Robinson, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition and a gay Baltimore resident, agreed. He said, via a post-ruling press release, the judgment was “beyond a travesty” that the high court failed to grant marriage rights for gays.

“Simply put, there is no legitimate rationale behind the high court’s ruling,” he said. “Only excuses.”

Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, called the ruling “a setback in the fight for equality.”

“But we remain confident that, ultimately, same-sex couples in Maryland who form committed relationships and build loving families will receive the same protections that the state provides to married opposite-sex couples.”

He called on state legislators to end discrimination against Maryland’s same-sex couples.

“We urge Maryland’s legislature to pass a bill extending marriage to same-sex couples,” Solmonese said, “so that these families can receive the important protections they deserve.”

Many case observers said they were surprised by the court’s decision, which came about nine months after judges heard the case.

“I thought there was a good possibility that Maryland was going to do the right thing,” ...