same-sex marriage in Maryland
| Legal recognition of same-sex relationships |
||
|---|---|---|
| Same-sex marriage | ||
|
|
||
| Recognized in some regions | ||
| United States(MA) |
||
| International recognition | ||
| Israel United States(NY) |
||
| Civil unions and domestic partnerships |
||
|
||
| Recognized in some regions | ||
|
Argentina ( |
||
| Unregistered co-habitation | ||
|
|
||
| Recognition debated | ||
|
||
| Civil unions legal, same-sex marriage debated |
||
|
|
||
| See also | ||
|
Same-sex marriage |
||
Same-sex marriage in Maryland is not currently recognized by state law. In 2004, supporters of same-sex marriage filed a lawsuit, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway, to force the state to recognize these unions. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2006, and ruled against the plaintiffs on September 18, 2007, leaving the legal ban on same-sex marriage in place.
In recent sessions of the Maryland General Assembly, legislators opposed to same-sex marriage have attempted, without success, to enact an amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.
Current law
Maryland Family Law, Section 2-201, provides that "[o]nly a marriage between a man and a woman is valid" in the state. [1] The statute, enacted in 1973, does not prohibit legal recognition of other forms of same-sex union such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. [2]
Conaway v. Deane & Polyak
On July 7, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union, in partnership with Equality Maryland, filed a lawsuit (Deane & Polyak et al. v. Conaway et al.) on behalf of nine same-sex couples and one man whose partner had recently died. [3] The plaintiffs had applied for marriage licenses in several Maryland jurisdictions, but their applications were denied by the respective county clerks, who are named as the defendants in the case. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. [4]
On August 30, 2005, oral arguments from each side were presented to Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock. On January 20, 2006, Murdock ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, writing that "Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge. Family law ยง2-201 violates Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because it discriminates, based on gender against a suspect class, and is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interests." [5]
Judge Murdock immediately stayed the decision pending an appeal by the office of the Maryland Attorney General. [6] On July 27, 2006, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, agreed to hear the appeal directly, bypassing an intermediate court. [7] Oral arguments were heard on December 4, 2006. [8]
On September 18, 2007, the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs in a 4-3 decision, leaving the statutory ban on same-sex marriage in place. [9] State Senator Gwendolyn Britt of Landover Hills and Delegate Victor R. Ramirez of Mount Rainier are expected to submit a bill during the 2008 session to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. [10]
Reaction to the lawsuit
While many civil rights groups hailed Judge Murdock's decision, opponents of same-sex marriage reacted by stepping up efforts to prevent legal recognition of such unions. Legislators opposed to same-sex marriage, led by Delegate Don Dwyer, have introduced several measures since the lawsuit was filed. [11]
Constitutional amendment
During the 2006 and 2007 sessions of the Maryland General Assembly, legislators opposed to same-sex marriage proposed several amendments to the Maryland Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If enacted, such an amendment would have the effect of keeping the prohibition on same-sex marriage in effect regardless of the outcome of Deane & Polkay v. Conaway or any future lawsuit.
One such proposed amendment, HB 48, was rejected by the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates on February 2, 2006. Prior to the vote, some committee members, who opposed the bill, amended it to create civil unions while banning same-sex marriage. This resulted in a unanimous committee vote to reject the proposed constitutional amendment. [12] Other amendment proposals (such as SB 262 and SB 690) were also introduced in 2006, but none were passed out of committee before the session came to an end in April.
Two similar proposals (SB 564 and HB 919) were introduced in the 2007 legislative session; once again, neither of them was passed out of committee. The latter amendment, which would have also banned the discussion of same-sex unions in schools, was defeated in the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 12-8 on March 22. [13]
Impeachment attempt
On March 7, 2006, Del. Dwyer introduced a resolution in the Maryland General Assembly to impeach Judge M. Brooke Murdock, charging her with "violating the public trust, abuse of power, incompetence, willful neglect of duty, and misbehavior in office" for her Circuit Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage. Dwyer's resolution was defeated by a 19-3 vote in the Judiciary Committee on March 10. [14]
See also
- Same-sex marriage in the United States
- Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
- Same-sex marriage in the United States by state
- Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion
- Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
- List of benefits of marriage in the United States
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Marriage Protection Act
- Defense of marriage amendment
- Federal Marriage Amendment
- Domestic partnerships in the United States
- Freedom to Marry Coalition
- History of civil marriage in the U.S.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
