Court upholds MD Gay Marriage Ban

[keltic63]

Read about it here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jESy_HKKB0tgIpiHKzxwB-wcb99Q)


BALTIMORE (AP) — 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 by same-sex couples who claimed they were being denied equal protection under the law.
Maryland's 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, the Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision. It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.


Discuss.

[u-dog]

Read about it here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jESy_HKKB0tgIpiHKzxwB-wcb99Q)



Discuss.


It wasn't just ONE cout ... it was FOUR old Couts that upheld the ban!

[Daniel]

It rather annoys me when courts say things like this- from the article:


The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit."

They didn't act in the interest of children. They acted against the interest of children, the children of GLBT folks to be precise. It's a superious argument.

And the line about promoting procreation? Give me a break!

Do opposite-sex couples really need a leg up on how to make making babies? I don't think so.

Silliness passing for intelligence.

[Emproph]

From 365Gay.com (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/09/091807maryland.htm):

The court also said that although there has been a history of unfair discrimination against gay people, as a group gay people are not politically powerless.

"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 T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

Oh great. So it'll be passed by the general assembly, struck down by popular vote, and then go back to the Maryland Supreme Court, or some combination there of. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

In addition, consider this, via BoxTurtleBulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,017.htm):

A Critical Examination of the Family Research Council’s Amicus Curiae Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals Opposing Gay Marriage

The FRC then, in my own favorite fit of misrepresentation, turns to Maria Xiridou’s study5 (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,017.htm#Note05) (the famous “Dutch Study (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm)”) to claim that “A recent study of male same-sex relationships in the Netherlands found that men with steady partners have on average eight casual sex partners a year.” Later in the brief, the FRC says, “The recent Dutch study found that the average ‘steady relationship’ – which was not even monogamous – lasted 1.5 years.”

...and, most importantly, all monogamous couples were excluded!

When you exclude monogamous couples from a study, it should come as no surprise that the non-monogamous couples you are studying are, well, not monogamous.

I repeat: http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

Now granted, I have not been able to find anything even hinting at this in all of their 244 page ruling (http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf) (if you right click on the pdf you can search for words and phrases), but I think it's something important to consider - in whatever context. From outright lies to the fact that these lies have not yet been openly and legally condemned. Especially given that the court is unabashedly running with the procreation "argument."

If the unfounded procreation argument is an influence that they're actually being open about, what influences might they be hiding that lead to their ruling, such as those of the FRC?

[Steven E. Webster]

From 365Gay.com (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/09/091807maryland.htm):



Oh great. So it'll be passed by the general assembly, struck down by popular vote, and then go back to the Maryland Supreme Court, or some combination there of. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

In addition, consider this, via BoxTurtleBulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,017.htm):



I repeat: http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/rollEyes.gif

Now granted, I have not been able to find anything even hinting at this in all of their 244 page ruling (http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf) (if you right click on the pdf you can search for words and phrases), but I think it's something important to consider - in whatever context. From outright lies to the fact that these lies have not yet been openly and legally condemned. Especially given that the court is unabashedly running with the procreation "argument."

If the unfounded procreation argument is an influence that they're actually being open about, what influences might they be hiding that lead to their ruling, such as those of the FRC?

Emproph,
I share your frustration.

I wonder, though, if the problem is the legal definition of what is a "reasonable" argument for discriminiation. Some of my reading indicates that courts may set a very low bar for "reasonableness." Many courts would like to see these decisions made in State Legislatures so that they don't have to take the heat that comes with being branded "judicial activists."

It is "reasonable" in a very naieve way to suggest that heterosexuals procreate while to persons of the same-sex do not procreate (not without some help, anyway). Now I'm not real impressed with this "reason," but again, the legal bar for "reasonableness" may be so low that this kind of argument is "reasonable."

"Reasonable" is kind of a relative term, it seems to me. We may see a day come when our culture will no longer find any kind of discrimination agalnst LGBT people "reasonable" any longer. That's why groups like Soulforce, PFLAG etc. need to keep working to change our culture. We do need to achieve more legislative victories and not rely solely on courts.

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

I don't know how it cannot be considered discrimination when gay people procreate just like straight people do, the only difference is in how it is done! And I know straight people who get inseminated, go through surrogacy, etc, so what the hell is the difference? The fact that one has a penis and the other a vagina? Give me a large break!

When gay people are denied the right to marry or any other fundamental civil right, just because they are gay, it is DISCRIMINATION and nothing less!!!

For a country supposedly built on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we have YET to live up to that ideal.

[Emproph]

It is "reasonable" in a very naive way to suggest that heterosexuals procreate while to persons of the same-sex do not procreate (not without some help, anyway). Now I'm not real impressed with this "reason," but again, the legal bar for "reasonableness" may be so low that this kind of argument is "reasonable."

Right, just like the religious definition of "change," can "change," if you just change your mind about the word "change." :D http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/smiley_omgomgomg.gif :shifty:

___
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2007/09/madaleno-deconstructs-ruling-against.html

Delegate Rich Madaleno sent around an email after the ruling that summarized his disappointment and his criticism of the opinion..The Court held that the current law does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of sex because it "prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct." If that argument sounds familiar, it should: it is the same discredited argument that southern racists used to claim that anti-miscegenation laws did not discriminate on the basis of race, because everyone was subject to the same restriction. In fact, Judge Lynne Battaglia noted in her dissent that "In reaching this result, the majority breathes life into the corpse of separate but equal…" The US Supreme Court saw through that twisted logic four decades ago. It is sad that the Maryland Court grasped onto such a discredited argument today.
How's that for a quote?

[tdogg]

Some days I feel so discouraged in our efforts... :'(

The California same-sex bill is once again sitting on the governor's desk. While sailing through the assembly and senate, Gov Arnold has indicated he will, once again, veto this bill.

The comments on the local paper's article on this bill today prove that the only thing more prevalent out there than hypocrisy and bigotry is ignorance.

Is there any hope???

[Zerbie]

It rather annoys me when courts say things like this- from the article:



They didn't act in the interest of children. They acted against the interest of children, the children of GLBT folks to be precise. It's a superious argument.

And the line about promoting procreation? Give me a break!

Do opposite-sex couples really need a leg up on how to make making babies? I don't think so.

Silliness passing for intelligence.

Oh for heaven's sake! Seriously, folks, this is absurdity.

[Alecto]

Some days I feel so discouraged in our efforts... :'(

The California same-sex bill is once again sitting on the governor's desk. While sailing through the assembly and senate, Gov Arnold has indicated he will, once again, veto this bill.

The comments on the local paper's article on this bill today prove that the only thing more prevalent out there than hypocrisy and bigotry is ignorance.

Is there any hope???

This confuses me SO hardcore. Isn't the big complaint always "activist judges" blah blah? What are people's excuses for the veto?

[tdogg]

This confuses me SO hardcore. Isn't the big complaint always "activist judges" blah blah? What are people's excuses for the veto?

Arnold's reason for vetoing the same sex marriage bill is because way back in 2002 the voters voted to exclude marrige for same-sex partners. He says he will not go against the wishes of the people of CA.

I have a couple issues with that - first, that was then, this is now. How can we hold public opinion that was made 7 years ago? And made questionably at that.

Then, I certainly do not want my civil rights and protections decided by on the people who live in this state. After all, look who they voted in for governor?? Ok, not a total disaster, but when you look at our history, senate/assembly issues, and the oodles of bond measure that normally end up in the hands of a few rich executives - these are not the people I trust to make significant decisions about my rights.

But, until we get a governor willing to stand up for what is right, this is where we are.

[pnggrad79]

Obviously, the will of the people of CA have CHANGED since this gay marriage bill has come up twice by ELECTED people who are listening to their constituents. How can Arnold say that it is against the will of the people? This isn't something dreamed up by some gay congressman just to piss Arnold off! This is the glbt community demanding equal rights and it is about damn time!!!!:mad: