Let gays marry. No reason to make just straight married men suffer.

Sad day for gay families, sad day for Maryland.

Jeez, I used to be proud to live in progressive MD; this is the first time I've had to read in the paper that the state I live in really doesn't believe I deserve equal rights. Next step? Show the way and I will follow...

Thank goodness. At least Maryland's Court of Appeals has retained some conservatism and moral sense.

My heart goes out to gay people in Maryland. I'm ashamed that our courts feel that they can basically tell you who you can and cannot be with. Sad day.

If gays can't get married in a state named Maryland, they're pretty much out of luck.

"Our laws should reflect what is best for children, not what is best for adults," she said.
Sheesh. Is she admitting that same-sex marriage is what is best for adults? If "our laws should reflect what is best for children," then we should have parent-qualification laws that would prevent mentally ill, drug and alcohol addicted, violent adults, to say nothing of religious fanatics, from having chldren.

"...State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure...."

Rest assured, when courts note they're preserving "tradition," they're rationalizing some brand of discrimination.

I agree that we need more Family Values in America. Let me paint a picture for you. I am a CPA and my wife is a teacher. We just celebrated our 13th anniversary. I work full-time to support her and our four children. We decided that she would be a stay-at-home mom last year when our twin girls were born. We pay our taxes, attend church, don't use drugs, are involved in community activites, socialize and watch out for our neighbors and IMHO are downright good, law-abiding Amercian citizens. We are trying to instill good ole' American values in our children - work hard, do unto others as they would do unto you, etc. This is what this country needs.

Oh, by the way, I am a female CPA and my wife, well, she's not legally my wife, but we've been in a committed, monogomous, loving relationship for 13 years so I do consider her my wife. The problem is we can't marry so we don't have the same, not special, but the same protections as straight couples do. All we want is to protect each other and our family. We don't want to pay an inheritenance tax on the same house we live in and share if one of us dies, we want to have access to insurance, and we don't want to worry about a homophobic nurse kicking us out of the hospital room because we're not "family". To those out there that think this doesn't happen, it does. I had to show a nurse the adoption papers to convince her that my partner and I were both legally our son's mothers so we could both visit him in the NICU. It sickens me to hear conservatives go on and on about Family Values. I have great family values. How about you?

Lets get this straight. First the court are telling you anything about what u can or can not do, the people you voted into office are. The courts are simply saying, there is nothing unconstititional about the law that was created. It's not the courts fault that people we voted into office, as well as the overwhelming majority of people in probably 49 or 50 states, don't approve of the idea of gay marriage. If you don't like it, get these people out of office, and vote for someone who supports your views.
I for one could care less either way, while I am disturbed by gay marriage, and prefer that homosexuality not exist at all, I'm pretty sure that when we constantly throw out the word freedom in this country wd dont just mean freedom for the majority, but freedom for all, even those we disagree with.

Maryland: Keeping Its Citizens Ready for the 19th Century.

William wrote: "Thank goodness. At least Maryland's Court of Appeals has retained some conservatism and moral sense."

You have very twisted "morals" if you think oppressing your fellow citizens and relegating them to second-class citizenship is righteous. It's wrong, and future generations will look back with astonishment that common sense, equal rights and fairness were so misunderstood in this era. Do you know what will change when gays have equal marriage rights? *Nothing* at all. It's just a matter of time, so opponents of human rights and equality under the law in "the Land of the Free" (what a joke) are just wasting their time. Why do you care what kind of legal arrangements people you don't even know make? Your family and marriage is threatened how, exactly? Obviously, many gay people are pro-family. That's the whole point of this struggle and it's actually a "conservative" value. SHAME on the anti-family bigots who hurt families and children with their hateful and oppressive anti-gay ideology.

This decision continues the pattern of marriage discrimination that has kept same-sex couples and their families from attaining the rights and responsibilities of marriage that many heterosexual couples take for granted.

Wow, think about all those gay people who moved from VA to MD thinking they were going to get married one day. There's always MA. Wonder how thye decide which one's the husband and which one's the wife?

This decision breaks my heart. I had put such hope in our court system to recognize that my partner and I deserve the same basic human decency as straight couples do. Silly me.

Very disappointing. But, at the end of the day, this is a setback that will eventually be overturned by legislation. It may not happen today; it may not happen next week; but the time will come - perhaps in the next decade or the one following - where equality will rule the day.

The court got it right. The ACLU is notorious for using a legal strategy that circumvents our legislative system because that's the only way their cases can slide through the system. Americans and the ACLU do not see eye to eye.

Thank you,

James

Cute, Stick. Isn't mindless oppression hilarious? Doesn't it bring such joy to your heart to deny your fellow citizens the rights and privileges you and I enjoy?

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

One day, we as a nation will be ashamed of this era and the pointless injustice cheered on by people like you. Shame on you.

I would just like to reply to Stick's posting. I can completely understand that some individuals have a moral objection to gay marriage and I can respect that. What I have a hard time understanding is the humor that you seem to see in this situation. I hope that you understand that there are a lot of people in genuine pain over this. Whether you approve of their lifestyle or not, I don't EVER find someone else's pain to be funny or an appropriate target for jokes.

I agree with the majority of the posters (and assume the opposition isn't capable of accessing the internet due to the fact that it doesn't fit into their 'biblical worldview'---thank 'whoever' for that). Why would anyone ever think that denying equal rights to ALL americans is justified? How do they live with the cognitive dissonance that must allow them to think this way.

Stop the pathetic attempts to spin this. Gay people are free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like me. The same freakin' rights apply, OK?? No one is "oppressing" them. Unfortunately for them, gays make up a tiny percent of the population and are simply not going to be able to turn the world on its ear to advance their "cause." They are basically a "special interest group." You know, just like the ones that we despise on Capital Hill. People are tired of having to suck up to special interest groups and having their lives affected by them. I shudder to think what health care costs would be like for the the majority of people if gays, with the stigma of AIDS forever attached to them, were allowed to legally marry. Insurers would have a field day raising rates to compensate for the dramatically increased risk. Many people already can't afford it. And the impact to health care costs is just ONE example. The "right" to wave a freak flag ends right at my wallet.

Homosexuality is the alternative option when heterosexuality does not work for an individual. I don't think that anyone would deny that. As such, people have been voting in a way that rejects any notion that the two lifestyles are equivalent. That is not an attack on gays, but on the obviously false presumption that homosexuality is just another stop on the normal path of an average person's sexual experiences.

I cannot say how any of this should be reflected in marriage laws. Quite frankly, I really do not care. I have not heard any good arguments for allowing homosexual marriage other than "it's not fair not too", "hetero couples are screwed up too, so where's the harm", or "a few of us are good parents", and the classic "you can't tell people whome to love" as if the state really cared at all about love when it issued marriage licenses. An average homosexual marriage would NOT be the same as a heterosexual one, and many of the public policy concerns embodied in marriage laws, for example survivorship rights (e.g. the care and maintenance of minor children), would have to be seriously reevaluated. You don't just snap your fingers capriciously because a small group of people feel unloved.

The laws still would have to be created by the legislature. The court was merely determining whether a current statute was unconstitutional or not, if I am reading this correctly. As such, the ACLU could not have been circumventing the legislature. The legislature can still pass a law - now, it just faces an uphill battle, as this decision will have to be overturned in order for any law the legislature passes be deemed constitutional.

As Maryland has in place an ERA, the court was incorrect; to not allow people the same rights as others under the law is not equal protection under the law. Its a shame the judiciary cannot step aside from its political leanings to actual interpret the words of the consitution.

Hey Realist,

If they really want to make a difference in Maryland, they will start to require IQ tests before marriage to keep complete morons like you from reproducing.

Stick wrote: "Wonder how thye decide which one's the husband and which one's the wife?"

Gee, I don't know. But I imagine it's similar to the process you'd employ to make such weighty decisions as whether to watch NASCAR or pro wrestling.

You don't have to be a lawyer, much less a Court of Appeals judge, to understand that this decision was made not on law but on personal views and opinions. There is no rational legal basis for upholding this law. I had planned on staying in my home state of Maryland my entire life, but this is infuriating. Massachusetts can have my income tax instead.

Realist,

For one thing, your argument that I could marry a man just like you can is the same one that was struck down in Loving vs. Virginia. People had the right to marry someone of their same race, whether they were white or black. It was still discrimination. I face sex discrimination when I apply for a marriage license with my partner and get turned down solely on the basis that I am female. Why is this not clear to you?

As far as how much it would cost you, what - you think insurance companies have never heard of AIDS? That they don't cover any gay people now? Good heavens. Get educated... The only difference would be that employers would have to extend partner benefits to the partners of gay employees, too - which would not have any kind of effect on your precious wallet.

Your right to make laws affecting my life stops when you don't have a rational basis for it.

Still wondering what business the State has in marriage. If you want sense, which will not happen anytime soon, the State should only handle the civil union part. That would be between any two people who wish it. Contractual, if you will.

Marriage is a religous commitment, which should be handled on its own. You should be able to have the first without the second getting in the way. The fact that my 'church' would not recognize a _marriage_ has nothing to do with their commitment.

When I married we had two ceremonies, a civil, performed by a judge, and a religous, performed by a Rabbi. And just to reinforce the difference, if we only had the religous ceremony, the state would not have considered us married.

How does letting people commit to each other hurt me, or "the children"? It is interesting that a majority of studies show more divorces in states that scream that they are "pro-marriage" than in states that try to have equality for all.

If the State wants to do this "for the children" it should get out of the marriage business.

Joe Schmoe has lived up to his name with his cockamamie analysis ... it is a piddling, unsophisticated rant. I don't care if Joe Schmoe, or any other Schmoe, does not love me. What I am concerned about is being able to share the same rights with my partner as Dick and Mary.

"Homosexuality is the alternative option when heterosexuality does not work for an individual. I don't think that anyone would deny that."

I deny that. What an asinine premise. Straight people who are unlucky in love don't just "snap [their] fingers capriciously" and turn gay.

The anti-gay ignorance on display in this discussion thread is truly astonishing.

JoeSchmoe and Realist, your arguments are full of paper tigers. "with the stigma of AIDS forever attached" - WTF? Is that a clumsy way to try to say all homosexuals have HIV? Lesbians have lower rates of HIV than straight African Americans. Should marriage by African Americans be banned?

The ruling is a set back, but let's actually read it. It is simply saying that they cannot find grounds for considering a current law unconstitutional, but that "our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions"

The court's logic makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain this?

The decision seems to say that denying gay marriage is a way to make sure children are born and raised in straight marriages.

Does allowing gay marriage stop heterosexuals from getting married and raising children? No, it doesn't

Does denying gay marriage stop gay couples from having and raising children? No it doesn't.

How does the issue of gay marriage have any effect on how children are raised and it what families? The only effect it has is that by denying gay marriage, you dent the children of gay couples of the benefits that the children of straight couples enjoy.

It cannot be discrimination if any person can marry any other person of the opposite sex who is not a child, parent, or other close family member and who is not already legally married.

If they are not of the opposite sex, then it is not a marriage and the point is now moot, so says the Supreme Court of the State of Maryland.

And you know that the legislature will never pass a law to support "same-sex marriage."

Hey, did anyone else notice that CAC in Takoma Park is advocating Eugenics? Someone should let CAC know that they Third Reich ended back in 1945 and its racial policies ended with it!

Men pretending to be women
Women pretending to be men
Pretend 'marriages'
Pretend 'families'
Why do the rest of us have to agree to
a fantasy?

I am so shattered. I wanted to marry my partner of eight years; we've built a life together in our town and all I wanted was to be able to be married like all our friends. To know that he'd be taken care of by survivors' benefits, that we could hold joint title to our house without tax penalties, to know that we could visit each other in hospital without having to beg permission. And now the unelected Court tells me that we may not, that the discrimination and disadvantage I am under is not bad enough, or real enough, for them to help me and I should throw myself on the mercy of the legislature and ask them nicely to make me an equal citizen.

I can't express how angry and hurt I am that my family is not valued by the courts. If you disagree, if you feel all well and good about it, then just try to put yourself in my shoes. Did you ask to be heterosexual? Do you remember the day you evaluated all your options and decided to be attracted to and one day marry an opposite sex person? Or was that natural to you, your attraction and love directed only one way from your earliest awakening of interest, was your attraction as much a part of you as your eyes and skin? And now imagine that being called sick, or not as healthy as others' attractions...wouldn't you feel 'unloved' -- or worse -- like a throw-away person of little value, a second-class citizen, illegitimate, not quite as good, slightly unworthy? And how can you call that 'all well and good?'

JoeSchmoe:

Thank you for highlighting the fact that people who don't support equality under the law simply don't understand the issues. Your assumption that homosexuality is a choice is clearly false. Ask any gay person whether they made the choice to be gay. Wouldn't they know better than you whether it's a choice? You are just using that to continue the oppression of gay people and the continuation of their second-class citizenship in this country. It's tired and transparent, and it doesn't fool anybody. Nor does the bizarrely ignorant comment that gay people are free to marry people who they don't want to marry. Gay people are not the majority, but that doesn't mean homosexulaity is not a normal aspect of human sexuality. Most people don't have red hair, either. Does that mean they're abnormal? Stop obsessing about the sex and start thinking about human beings.

Why can straight couples who can't or don't want children be "allowed" to marry according to your standards? Are you aware there are over 1,000 rights and privileges that come with civil marriage? Why would you want to deny that to hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens? Why do they have fewer rights than convicted felons? What's in it for you? I really don't understand why you oppose something that would only affect people who happen to be gay, and it would only make their union and families stronger and more protected.

Finally, while obviously public opinion is changing and for young people it's just not a big issue, in a democracy, people shouldn't be allowed to vote on the civil rights of others. Should interracial marriage not have been legalized when the majority opposed it?

These are your fellow citizens. Stop oppressing them and being in denial about how you are hurting them.

Realist would, of course, scream oppression loudly if the situation were exactly reversed and everyone was allowed to have only a same-sex spouse.

If the State's best interest is for me to get Married and pro create, then is it not also in their best interest to provide a living wage and health insurance and provide all that is necessary for that family to flourish?

What really bothers me most about these supreme court decisions that have come down lately is that they all seem to use "children" as the reason for allowing discrimination.

If you take the Maryland decision as a sample, it seems to be that Maryland would also be able to make it illegal for any non married woman to have a child. Under their same logic, it would be best for the children to only be born and raised in opposite sex married families. So, it should be constitutional to deny any non married woman the right to give birth to a child. I guess it would be constitutional in Maryland to either force unmarried women to use contraceptives. Or, to immediately take a child born to an unmarried woman and put it up for adoption to a married couple.

Another Marylander wrote: "Someone should let CAC know that they Third Reich ended back in 1945 and its racial policies ended with it!"

That has nothing to do with the issue, but please learn about the Nazi treatment of gay people and then get back to us. Should we end the policies of the Third Reich or not? Opponents of gay rights are no different than Nazis or the Taliban. Their excuses for this mindless oppression is exactly the same and will be defeated.

David Adams, my life is quite real, I assure you. I'm not pretending to be a woman, either--I am very much a man. I'm certainly more of a man than someone who hides behind his keyboard to denigrate his fellow citizens.

Marriage equality will have to be legislated and eventually it will. I support giving any two consenting human adults the right to enter into the state sponsored contract we call marriage. But then, I thought it was OK for Catholics to marry Protestants, so, I guess I'm just some sort of wild libertine.

Well, it just reaffirms what I always thought about Maryland when I was growing up in the Northeast - it's a backwards redneck state - at least a decade behind on racial equality. Why should this be any different. Too bad for all the businesses that could have benefited from this - and good for the economies of other states that will sell weddings to people regardless of the color of their money.

This isn't as big a defeat for homosexuals as many here seem to think just an invitation to lobby through the state legislature. Keep in mind that which is decided by the courts often becomes a culture war issue and any rights established by it will be continually under attack while that which is established by statute is usually much more difficult to overturn.

Paul,

Shattered is a good word for it. Me too. I just married my partner on Sept. 1st (after 5 years together) and I was so hoping that we could make it legal. But no, the court would rather accept an appeal so full of holes you could drain spaghetti in it than do their jobs and make an unpopular, but constitutional, STAND on a civil rights issue.

The State's legislature made the law. The court backed it up. If a minority population group wants special preference, they shouldn't expect it just because they want it - or that it seems right to them. Guess what? you're in the minority - get used to folks not agreeing with you (especially when your proclivities run afoul of nature).

I was beginning to think we were insane to even consider this for discussion. We can't change that you are Gay. Do as you please, but don't force society to change the will of nature. You have to answer to your maker in the end. ITS WRONG. Hopefully we can move on to other issues like WAR, EDUCATION and POVERTY now.

Finally some sanity in this cesspool of a state.

Some Idiot,

The rights of a minority should not be up for a vote by the majority. The fact is, our constitution should prevent this gender discrimination (yes, it is gender discrimination: two kinds. One - every man that applies to marry a man will be denied, while a woman would be approved. Two - every woman that applies to marry a woman will be denied, while a man would be approved. Two cirumstances, two instances of gender discrimination, one law). But the courts are too chickensh*t to do what's right for MY children, since a lot of people think my family isn't good enough.

Well, it's quite clear from reading these posts that people who SUPPORT equal rights for gays use reason with a strong sense of freedom and fairness, while people who OPPOSE equality use only fearmongering, stereotypes and hysteria over change.

I haven't read anything remotely convincing about why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Nothing. It's all just bigotry. Sad.

JV,

Yeah, those interracial couples should have just shut up and not asked for special preference, either.

Tom Rivers,

Please do prove to us that civil marriage is the "will of nature". Yes, those other issues are important too, but my civil rights are being trampled on and that kinda irks me, ya know?

The ignorance on display in many of the comments here about homosexuality (such as the one that says gays are straight people who've failed at it) proves one thing - our education system has failed.

But then, this the religious in this country are blinded by their faith, the only science they seem to believe in is gravity, I shouldn't be surprised.

Karen, there is nothing unnatural about interracial marriage. And about your civil "rights" being trampled, I'll reiterate; having a "feeling" that you should have the "right" to something is not the same as "having" the right. IOW - you want the right, and you want others to agree with you. Well many of us don't. Does that mean I/we think you're less of a person? No - it just means that marriage should only be an arrangement between a man and a woman.

Go ahead, let homosexuals marry and (attempt to) procreate... they'd be gone in one generation because it simply isn't natural. This is an UNNATURAL behavior simply evidenced by the design of the human body and further by all of human history.

Hey, "simple truth" - I seriously hope none of your kids are gay. It would really suck to have such a bigot for a parent.

On the one hand: you can't get married.
On the other hand: you're not being tied to a fence rail. Gays act like they've had something taken away from them. Exactly when did the info that you can't marry each other become news to you? It's tradition in a Judeo-Christian country. We let you guys out of the closet, now this.

P.S.

I'm gay, and my parents were straight. So your argument that we'd all be gone in one generation is just plain dumb.

P.P.S.

I am pregnant. Donor sperm. Does that scandalize you?

To JV:

Equal marriage rights are not "special preference," and in a free democracy, minority groups should be protected from what de Toqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." (Not that the the anti-equality crowd understands freedom or democracy.)

You are simply saying it's okay to deny minority groups equal rights because they are not the majority. And if they simply demand all the rights YOU have, then you dismiss it by pretending it's "special rights". But you are wrong. Thankfully, the next generation overwhelmingly supports equal rights for gay Americans. So you won't be able to hide behind that false sense of justification for long.

Hey Stick,

Thanks, really, a thousand thanks for not tying us to fence rails. Thanks for 'letting me out of the closet' by 'allowing' me to have parents who trust me when I say "I didn't choose this, and I'm fine, really."

Who said it was news? Miscegenation laws weren't news to Loving and Loving's fiancee, either. The traditions of Judeo-Christianity have zero bearing on the US Constitution and its guarantees of equal protection.

Abolish marriage rights. It's discriminatory against single people. I live with a friend, and we care about each other and pool our resources. Why should we be less entitled to rights than a gay couple? Because we're straight? "Marriage rights" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision that certain people are entitled to X & Y benefits. Why a man and a woman? Why "two people who love each other"? Why not three people who just happen to get along? And don't give me some line about committment in this day and age of easy divorce. And don't give me some line about the committed gay relationships out there, because there are some, but they sure as heck break up just like straight people too.

William: This case may be many things, but it's not a victory for conservative values. A true conservative would be horrified at the thought of the government telling people they can't marry. It's a shame, really. The far freaky right has stolen the word 'conservative' and has basically bastardized it almost beyond recognition.

Scott G (Ashburn VA) is more likely to be friends with Larry Craig. And a special triple-tap to you, Tom.

We Bestialists were born this way. There should not be a reason that we shouldn't be allowed to marry sheep. End the oppression of Bestialists everywhere. We and our Fur Friends are not second class citizens and we demand our rights.

Farm animals need loving too.

Hey simple TRUTH,

Maybe gay people can just adopt the millions of abandoned, abused and neglected children "NATURALLY" created by us heterosexuals. Problem solved.

Realist:

Actually, gay marriage would encourage monogamy, which would help reduce AIDS rates.

As for gays having the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, you can't be serious with that argument. Would you be happy being told you could only marry someone of the same sex? Why not? You'd be equal to gays, wouldn't you?

'i have the answer':

You're right to a point. Except that our family and estate laws are geared toward *two-person* sets, and provisions aren't made for the contract to be between more than two people. This causes practical issues that are not encountered when the contract is opened up to same-sex pairs (it's already open to you and your friend, assuming neither of you is married and you're opposite sex - no law says you must be in love.)

Not that it's not insurmountable, but it is a consideration. Same-sex marriage is actually an *easier* answer.

Oh, and to the lovely "bestialist" -

As soon as you find a sheep that has the ability to enter into contracts and consent to marriage and/or sex, you come find me and I'll lobby for your right to have sex with/marry it.

The bottom line is that each generation gets to define the laws under which they live. And you may be right that the next generation may allow for gay marriage - but maybe they won't. Does that mean that we're bigots if we believe that gay marriage is wrong? - maybe you think so. But understand this, I don't hate gays, and I certainly don't want gays to suffer any more than they already have. But I also have to vote my conscience - just as you do. Regards.

Goanna Humpa wrote: "We Bestialists were born this way. There should not be a reason that we shouldn't be allowed to marry sheep. End the oppression of Bestialists everywhere. We and our Fur Friends are not second class citizens and we demand our rights. Farm animals need loving too."

Why are you saying these things? Nobody is talking about marrying animals, or trees or anything like that. We are talking about two consenting adults, American citizens and HUMAN BEINGS marrying the person of their choice. I'm sure you're trying to be inflamatory, but you've only proven...again...that you have no legitimate opposition to gay marriage.

Today, there are people crying over this decision. It directly affects their lives.

Had the ruling gone the other way, how many tears would have been shed, other than tears of joy?

This is a stomach punch. Good people suffer when the laws are unjust.

I'll believe that marriage is for procreation only right after all states pass a bill saying if you fail to pump out a kid in the first two years of marriage you get your marriage dissolved.

Otherwise, that argument is pretty much BS. Much like all the other arguments against gay marriage.

But, hey, I'm open to suggestion here. If you want to deny me the benefits of marriage, then how about giving me back my taxes? You know, the ones that go to support all the programs and government protections available only to straight married couples.

While I sympathize with the desires of gay people to have officially recognized unions (my brother is gay), I nonetheless agree with the above posts that you do not establish a "right" simply by wanting something. The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuals are a small minority, and the sexual aspect of it does make a lot of people uncomfortable. Your advocates and the ACLU are painting themselves into a corner by persuing over-aggressive tactics that simply try to smear anyone opposed as "bigoted" or "intolerant". Rather than try to convince anyone of the purported correctness of your stance, you just look down your noses at others as some sort of uncultured redneck louts (who are, of course, resisting your efforts because THEY think YOU are immoral). Here's a classic example from this very discussion thread:

"Opponents of gay rights are no different than Nazis or the Taliban. Their excuses for this mindless oppression is exactly the same and will be defeated."

This is a great tactic. Everyone knows that all internet debates are won by the first side to accuse the other of being Nazis. You would be better served by actually coming up with a cohesive, persuasive argument as to why gay marriage - an entirely new social and legal construct - is appropriate, rather than just call it a "right" that its opponents are too stupid/intolerant/evil to acknowledge as such. It's also interesting how people who press for such "rights" also often want to remove actual, literal constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment, but that's another thread entirely.

Sorry,

If I offended anybody, "Karen". This is my opinion only mine. My beliefs are not with a majority just myself. This is just something that is not important to me. I do wish that your children are not taunted and ridicule for the choices that you have made. One thing you must know children sometimes are very mean to other children. I would hate for your children to suffer for the choices that you made. Know matter how you or others claim this is something about equal rights its not, this is your kind trying to change the beliefs and ways of others. Have a good life.

I agree with corbett. This discussion is full of ignorant attacks on gays. The assumption that all gays are HIV positive, that all gays are pretending to be women, or that they are a special interest group.

The most amazing pattern is that comments made by gays directed at the fact that there are no equal rights for an estimated 4.6 million people in this country. The response from those that uphold the court ruling, however, is just a personal attack on gays.

Why is that in this country a man and a woman can get drunk, wake up married and have all benefits of a married couple, while a gay couple can live together for decades without even getting automatic visitation rights in the hospital, not to mention tax breaks and other financial benefits.

And please don't jump to biblical defenses about gay amorality, because if I recall the non-virgin brides were not exactly looked well upon in the bible. For that matter neither were the people who have adulterous thoughts, however, it is perfectly acceptable for married man to oggle a pretty girl who walks by.

I guess I just think it's ridiculous to attack a group that simply wants equal treatment without taking anything away from other groups.

I don't get it. Why do so many people hate gays and lesbians? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the rest of us?

Shawn,

No, you don't have to "vote your conscience". This is a false notion. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, don't do it. My conscience tells me eating meat is wrong. However, I would not vote to make eating meat illegal if such a question were ever put to me on a ballot - nor would I ask my legislators to vote that way. It's a matter of freedom - yours to eat meat, mine not to. Me to marry someone of the same sex, you to marry someone of the opposite sex. My church to bless my civil marriage, your church not to.

Actually, I'm just trying to be funny, but it's really a tough house out there today. I hope that gays can some day get a real sense of humor about themselves that's a little more thick-skinned than Will and Grace.

As for those who want to limit marriage to humans, well, what about Pedophiles and Necrophiliacs. Parents are able to enter into contracts for their kids and the objects of the Necrophiliac's affection could enter into a contract at one point. Certainly, the next of kin can.

What about the rights of children to the benefits of marriage?. Example -- not losing their home when what partner dies because the other can't afford the inheritance taxes?

GayMafia, what justification is there for heterosexual couples to marry? Also what are the reasons to prohibit gay marriages? If the gays are unable to marry due to their inability to procreate, then the states should simply set up potency requirements for all couples who wish to marry. The barren woman or an impotent man then should have no right to marry since they also do no contribute to procreation within the state.

JV,

No, I'm not trying to change your beliefs about gay people. I couldn't care less whether you think it's wrong or not, since I have my own mind and know that there's nothing wrong with my marriage. What I am trying to change is the notion that because *you believe* that gayness is immoral, you should therefore be able to take away my freedom to marry the person of my choosing, based on the sex of that person. As a conscientous American citizen, you should know where your power over me ends, and it ends at baseless sex discrimination.

We define deviancy down; what is deviant today is fairness tomorrow. Before there was the closet, then they wanted just to be let out and live their lives. Now they want to turn the natural order on its head and marry. So it's not a stretch to see that soon the pedophiles and beastialists will be out in force defining their deviancy as mainstream just because there's a lot of them.

Sorry sequoia, but the anti-homosexual laws in 1930's Germany were from the Wiemar Republic.

Sorry Hillman, but using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't work here. All people concerned with Liberty do not want the force of government used to make us acknowledge moral fictions such as "same-sex marriage" as if they were real.

By the way, when Kinsey did his study of human sexuality, according to his results in the United States 37% of all men reported having homosexual activity in their life and 13% of all women. Hardly a small group of people.

Parents are not able to enter their kids into marriage below a certain age (one that's entirely too young, to my eye!) True fact. Look it up.

As for necrophiliacs, may I point you to the part where you say ".... at one point". Ah, there it is - dead people can't enter into marriages! They're dead! (Tell that to the Mormons, though. They marry off dead people. True fact. Look it up.)

As for whether you're funny or not, you're not. You wouldn't have a sense of humor about it if YOUR wonderful marriage was being compared, in all seriousness, to bestiality and necrophilia day in and day out.

Another Marylander,

Under what moral authority and ethical theory do you declare same-sex marriages to be "moral fictions"?

I agree completely with lonebear that there should be two ceremonies, one civil/legal and one (optional) religious, for any couple who wants to get married. This is one area where the church is not at all separate from the state, and it needs to be.

Civil marriage would be open to absolutely anyone of legal age, and grant equal rights and protections without prejudice. Couples could decide for themselves whether they wanted to have a spiritual or religious ceremony as well, and those in their faith community would have to figure out whether they want to stand on the side of love and acceptance or ignorance and fear.

It took a long time for interracial marriage to become legal in this country, and a surprisingly large percentage of Americans (20% in general, more in Alabama, where 40% of residents voted to keep the interracial marriage ban in 2000) still oppose it. Yet in the forty years since Loving v. Virginia, the majority of people have come to see that the arguments used against interracial marriage were absurd, bigoted, and embarrassing.

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate," a Georgia judge declared in 1869, forbidding a white Frenchman and a black woman to marry.

"Such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good," he added.

Taking racism even further, a Missouri judge handed down an 1883 ruling based on the preposterous notion that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring: "It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Such lectures didn't end with the 19th century, though. In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving for evading Virginia's law against white-black marriages by marrying in Washington, D.C. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," Bazile declared. "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."

It was pointed out many times by the courts that anyone was free to marry another person of the same race, so therefore there was no discrimination, as long as they didn't go against God's law and choose to love someone of another race.

Change a few words, and every single argument that was used then is now being used against same-sex marriage. Let us hope that it will take less than forty years for these opinions against same-sex marriage to become laughable and unthinkable as well.

To see quotes and ideas in context, as well as many more correlative arguments, see vtfreetomarry.org, buddybuddy.com, and a host of other informative sites.

I am so sick of people like Anoither Marylander and their crap about same sex marriage being "fiction." Do you read anyone else's posts? Go up and read the one from "We Need More Family Values." What about that family's life is fictional? Is that what you teach you kids -- to tell her kids that their life and their family is a fraud? You should be so ashamed of yourself. You are the one living in a fictional world -- the one where someone else is responsible for your problems and you can be smug in your so-called morality. If you cared about children and a real moral foundation for society, you would support marriage for all families.

And I see the typical nonsense about not permitting infertile heterosexual couples marry is making the rounds.

But when heterosexuals are incapable of having children, it is a matter of accident or physical defect. Of course, they may choose to remain childless and we don't need the government making that choice for them.

Homosexuals cannot have children by design. It is the way that nature meant things to be.

Childless heterosexual couples at least reinforce the natural and proper family structure. Homosexual couples cannot, again by design.

Gay Mafia:

Obviously, those who want to continue the mindless oppression of their fellow citizens who happen to be gay do not respond to cohesive, persuasive arguments. They are talking about bestiality, "special rights", deem themselves God and proclaim omnipotence over what is "natural" and so on. NOT ONE has actually attempted to actually say why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry -- at least not remotely rationally -- and "that's the way it's always been" just isn't an argument to continue an injustice. Some have tried to say marriage is for procreation, but somehow heterosexuals (even the worst criminals in the country) are "allowed" to get married even if they can't or don't want to have kids. Marriage may be a religious sacrament to some, but not for all. My brother is an athiest and he was "allowed" to get married. That's because marriage is a LEGAL and personal contract between two people. Denial of this basic human right is pointless oppression and classic bigotry, and don't pretend hating inequality and bigotry is somehow "intolerance."

Anybody who say's gay people should't be allowed to marry "cuz it ain't in the Bible" is no different than the Taliban. Only, they are twisting Christianity into a weapon of oppression instead of Islam. God has nothing to do with it. This is not a theocracy. I'll bet these "Christians" are upset that the Taliban uses the Quran to opress them in many societies. There are also many echoes of Jim Crow and segregation in their arguments. And an anti-equality poster initially made the Nazi reference while ignoring the fact that he shares Nazis views about gays.

I wish more Americans actually thought about the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

It doesn't say..."unless you're gay!"

Reyhan -- Thanks for the history lesson. I hope the Justices who wrote the majority opinion read it and contemplate the company in which they will be lumped by future generations.

Dan, I care about children enough to want all of them raised by a mother and father as nature intended.

Karen, the authority is called reality. Things work a certain way in nature for a reason.

Another Maryland -- Join the real world. The fact is that there are, have always been, and always will be children born to and raised by gay couples. Laws shouldn't be written based on your fantasy world.

Why do people blame the deep feelings that so many people have against homosexual marriage on the Bible? I know of no culture, religion, tribe, society etc in the world that had homosexual marriage. So from all around the world for a million years human beings saw "marriage" as between a man and a woman. Maybe a man and a few women. I think this is one of the most deep seated natural instincts in the human species. there is NO precedent for homosexual marriage so why act so outraged when something so new, so unprecedented isn't accepted in the first 10 or so years its tried. If nature had thought it a good idea for 2 men/women to raise a human child it would happen. You don't overturn a million plus years of instinct, behavior and practice quickly, if at all.

Another Marylander,

"Reality" is not a moral authority, nor is it an ethical theory. Try again. You're getting closer with "things work a certain way in nature for a reason", but I'm not sure you're thinking through the implications of it.

Leni,

"I know of no culture, religion, tribe, society etc in the world that had homosexual marriage."

This is because you haven't studied it. Seek and ye shall find, grasshopper.

Another Maryland -- And I am sure all of those children appreciate your concern for their well being. What a crock.

Well, Another Marylander, that certainly didn't stop the Nazis from sending gays to the gas chamber.

Another Marylander, don't discuss the natural way of things as most species in nature practice homosexual and/or bisexual relations. You're mixing up natural with the biblically moral, which is hardly the same thing.

In addition to that I do not advocate prohibiting straight couples to marry just because of inability to have children, however, gay couples are denied that option for that same reason.

As for heterosexual couples forming proper family structure, I want to know what is the definition of proper? A man whose wife is frigid and who cheats on her is hardly more proper than a couple made of two women who love each other and are fully committed to each other.

Karen -- Thanks for your reply to Leni. My thoughts exactly. Although I doubt she will do the research. She is probably afraid it will make her gay.

Leni,

The biblical connection is very clear, that's where the marriage came from. Until the belief in god came about, humans did not marry each other. Unfortunately the nations adopted the biblical principle of marriage along with the biblical moral reservations towards gay relationships.

Goanna Humpa -- please just stop it. We are not talking about necrophilia, beastiality, pedophilia or anything else. We are talking about two consenting, living, human adults making a commitment to each other. Why do people like you bring these things up when the topic is gay marriage? I don't get it. Maybe heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry because of those things?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The above quote is Amendment XIV, Section 1 of our federal Constitution. If someone out there has an explanation of how the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision does not flagrantly violate these guarantees of privileges, immunities, and equal protection of the laws, I would certainly like to hear it. See especailly the 11:01am 9/18 post by We need more Family values. Right on, Sister!

Not that it's anyone's business, but I am a 60-year-old male, married to the same woman since I was 21, and have never had gay sex in my life. But, since my wife and I chose not to procreate, I suppose our marriage has no value in the eyes of some people.

So effed up.

I quote Jonathan Wallace:

"We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe."

I do not condone anything that doesn't lead to the survival of the human race. If all humans were gay they would face extinction. Trivial people. Thankfully there are "breeders".

Sorry sequoia, but screaming "Nazi" at the top of your voice is a poor substitute for either fact or logic.

Leni says, "If nature had thought it a good idea for 2 men/women to raise a human child it would happen. You don't overturn a million plus years of instinct, behavior and practice quickly, if at all."

Sorry Leni, but that is not a valid argument. First of all, 2 women / 2 men do raise children all the time. And guess what - no responsible study has ever concluded that the children are negatively affected or developmentally, morally, sexually, intellectually, or socially stunted at all. They are as well adjusted as kids raised in more "traditional" households. If nature was so against it, that wouldn't be the case. There is nothing to suggest gay people can't be great, committed and loving parents.

And the nature argument can just go on and on. Is it wrong to take medicine for a serious illness? If not, why? That's obviously not what nature intended. Nature intended for the ill person to suffer and maybe die. Do you use electric lights? Why? Nature intends for night time to be dark. Ever flown on an airplane? Not exactly what nature intended, now is it?

god, gays do not try to increase the number of gays in the world, nor will allowing them to get married increase their number. In fact most of the gays were born as a result of heterosexual people getting married.

"God",

Then I guess we should kill old people, because they add nothing to the survival of our race.

Trivial, right?

Another Marylander,

Neither is saying "It's nature" over and over. Marriage is in no way indicated by human nature. Indiscriminate sex, however, is.

Another Marylander wrote: "Sorry sequoia, but screaming "Nazi" at the top of your voice is a poor substitute for either fact or logic."

Errrr, then why were you babbling on about the CAC of Takoma Park, eugenics and the Third Reich? Mmmmmkay buddy.

"God",

Plus, I'm gay, not infertile. Donor insemination works for me just as well as it does for a straight couple with male-factor infertility.

Another Marylander,

"Dan, I care about children enough to want all of them raised by a mother and father as nature intended."

So what you are saying is that my children would be better off never having existed, than for them to be brought up with two moms who want them and love them very, very much.

Nice.

Another Marylander,

Oh, and you're ALSO saying that once my children exist, it's better than they are punished as a warning to future lesbians who might want to be moms, than for their moms to be able to give them the security, permanence, and stability of legal marriage.

In reading some of these posts, it occurs to me that perhaps there is a misunderstanding on the part of some opponents of equal civil marriage... I want to assure you that, when gay marriage is made legal, (as it already is in MA, Canada, The Netherlands, and several other places) it doesn't mean YOU have to get gay-married! Really! There will still be the exact same number of straights, the same number of gays, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to bear or adopt children, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to remain childless.

The only thing that will change is that there will be greater protections and responsibilities for all those who want to enter into a legal marriage contract, and perhaps there will be more tolerance towards others as less institutionalized discrimination leads to greater understanding over the generations.

Playground bullies will always find ways to ostracize those they perceive as different and therefore threatening, but they will have one less piece of ammunition if their taunts are not backed up by the law of the land. For now, if you are concerned that the children of GLBT people will be picked on at school, perhaps the best course of action would be to teach your children not to pick on them.

Since Another Marylander is quite obviously a heterosexual white male, he has no clue what it is like to be treated like a second class citizen because of gender, race, or sexual orientation. Maybe if it WAS possible to be discriminated against for being a complete moron he would get a taste of what it is like to be an African American lesbian. But, unfortunately, there is not yet any legislation against being a ignorant redneck with the IQ of pocket lint so an intelligent black lesbian is now a second-class citizen in this great state of ours but a Another Stupid Redneck -- uhm, I mean, Another Marylander, has complete Constitutional protection. What a great society we live in! Heil Hitler!

EXACTLY reyhan.

Nothing will change for anybody but gay couples *when* gay people have equal marriage rights. I'm straight and I do not understand the hysteria. Why are people so upset about what kinds of legal and personal arrangements others who they don't even know make? Gay couples (which newsflash: already exist) will simply have legal recognition and rights. What's the problem?

There is no rational argument against gay marriage.

Oh, Lyoshka: Your Biblical argument is so stupid that it's almost unfair of me to shoot it down.

First, there were numerous societies that had marriage long before the Bible. Two spring instantly to mind: the Romans and the Greeks. But there were countless others.

And lest we forget, Biblical marriage includes polygamy, forced marriage of underage girls, and the marrying of two sisters to the same man.

Care to defend those 'traditional' marriage values?

What? Why not?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
Genesis 1:27

I was created in God's image. I am gay.
The bible tells me God made me gay. What is the issue here?

Lyoshka:

My apologies. I misunderstood your post. I apologize.

Oh Hillman, both Romans and the Greeks were married before their own gods. I did not claim that marriage came to be because of the bible. It came to be as a religious rite, however, later bible defined the marriage terms.

Ironically though I was not defending biblical or "traditional" values in any of my posts, and it is quite sad that you did not read them past my comments on the bible.

No problem Hillman, please disregard my comment as well. This issue really accounts for a short fuse for a lot of us.

Actually marriage was first entered into by the ancient egyptians as a way to make 2 strangers into a "family".

Of course this was long before Christianity.

Another_karen,

What I don't get is the ones who use "and he created them male and female" as an argument for the immorality of being gay. It doesn't say "he created them male and female and heterosexual". I'm still female. I just love another female, which while it complicates my reproductive plans just as much as male-factor infertility in a straight couple does, it does not preclude us from leaving our parents and cleaving unto each other, being fruitful and multiplying, or reproducing within the context of lifelong, monogamous marriage.

Sheesh.

Right on, sister Karen. All I want is a way to be family, legally, to my partner. Not "hold medical POA" or be a "benificiary of her will". Be Family.

Karen:

I read nowhere in the bible where it says that lesbians are immoral. As a matter of fact the story of Ruth and Naomi might indicate that God may not have had a problem with women loving women at all.

Jesus says nothing at all about homosexuality...Not one thing.

Yet the number one argument against allowing us to marry is "the bible says so". My reply to that is "really -- Show me where".

another_karen wrote: "Yet the number one argument against allowing us to marry is "the bible says so". My reply to that is "really -- Show me where".

Or even more importantly to me...what does that have to do with equal rights under the law in 21st-century America? This is not a theocracy under the Bible and frankly, the views of ancient Middle Easterners aren't relevant to this discussion.

The bottom line is, if you oppose gay marriage, don't enter into a gay marriage. Is that so hard?

another_karen,

There's that business with the Apostle Paul and that naughty church in Corinth, but I contend that a) it would be unnatural for me to have sex with someone I wasn't attracted to, b) it's clear upon study of the original texts that it was idolatry and pagan temple sex rituals that Paul was saying God had such a problem with, and c) I am not a Christian so why does this matter to me again??

I am so very sad about this decision.

Actually Even Paul was referring to men with men. Lesbians are not mentioned.

I wish the court would have come up with better reasoning then "that's the way it's always been". I guess I will just have to push the legislature and give money to equality maryland. Maybe we should try to start a petition to put ALLOWING gay marriage on the ballot.

sequoia,

"The bottom line is, if you oppose gay marriage, don't enter into a gay marriage. Is that so hard?"

Yes, it is, if your goal is to enforce modern Christian godliness and your own narrow brand of family values on *everyone*.

Literally, someone filed a intervention motion in this appeal claiming that because being gay is against her religion, allowing gay marriage is oppression of her right to practice her religion. HAH! Can a motion be dismissed on the grounds that it's retarded? It was dismissed, but that really is the attitude of some people.

I love you, Karen. Let's join an ex-gay ministry, turn nice 'n straight, and get married so we can leave this crazy world behind.

another_karen,

Unfortunately, at this juncture, the number of people who care enough to vote against gay marriage usually outnumber the people who care enough to vote for gay marriage, even if the number of people who - when asked - support gay marriage or at least civil unions is larger.

Our rights shouldn't be decided upon by the legislature (what is granted by the legislature can easily be taken away), but it sure as heck shouldn't come down to a popular vote. This is a constitutional republic for a reason. Notice that the word "constitutional" comes first... hmmm....

Gay Takoma Guy,

Well, see, I'm already married... but thanks :-) We wouldn't have to go through a legal divorce to make that happen, but I believe in the sanctity of my own marriage (and isn't that what's really important?)

I agree with you Karen but doing something is better than doing nothing. If nothing else I would like to do it for nothing more than to "stick it" to Don Dwyer

From Schmtiz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com

This morning, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the state statute which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman in a 4-3 decision.
The court found that 1) the statue does not discriminate on the basis of gender 2) that sexual orientation is neither a suspect or quasi-suspect class, whereby discriminatory laws require a higher scrutiny 3) that there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex and 4) that the statute in question is related to a legitimate state objective, that is, upholding traditional marriage.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the Maryland constitution, but I'm going to offer some thoughts on point 3 it relates to the United States constitution (and maybe some of the others in future posts, time permitting).
The Supreme Court has stated that fundamental rights are "those liberties that are deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," and have repeatedly found that marriage is included in the list of fundamental rights. Opponents to marriage equality argue correctly that same sex marriage has never been apart of our nation's history or tradition.
Marriage itself, has. Herein lies the distinction. Same sex couples are not asking for the right of some special same sex marriage, they are asking for the right to be included in the preexisting institution of marriage, pure and simple.
The way that a right is defined plays a huge role in determing if its is in fact a legitimate right or no. The more broadly defined, the more likely it is to fit within tradition, thus being upheld, and vice versa.
Imagine if this 'most specific' methodology had been applied in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage. Had the Lovings claimed that the right to a mixed race marriage was rooted in our nation's history and tradition, they would have been instructed to review the long history of America's antimiscegenation laws. The first antimiscegenation law in North America was enacted in Virginia in 1691. Thirty one states maintained such laws by 1945; sixteen states still held them by the time Loving was decided.
Further, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney cited the long standing antimiscegenation laws in his decision to deny citizenship to blacks, stating, "intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes" The Lovings' claim was upheld, because they called upon the more general right to marry, rather than the specific right to marry someone of a different race, which clearly went against the longstanding traditions of the United States.
The Loving decision provides an important comparison for those who support same sex marriage. First it establishes that one of the most basic decisions in family life is the decision of whom one chooses to marry. It shows that the right to marry is not limited to longstanding legal or cultural traditions of exclusion. It also provides a framework by which the right of gays to marry should be addressed.
Just as the Lovings petitioned for, and the courts recognized, the fundamental right to marry, rather than the fundamental right to marry someone of a different race, so too should courts recognize that gays seek the right to marry in the broadest sense, rather than the specific right to marry someone of the same sex.
All of that being said, though I would have welcomed a decision from the court that recognized the equality of gay families, I respect their restraint. I have said before that I believe decisions involving divisive social issues such as gay equality are better decided by the legislature rather than judges, even if it means the path to equality is slower. I believe the legislature lends an air of legitimacy that the judiciary is largely lost.

Dear karen,

You said, regarding abolishing a *legal* definition of marriage altogether:
"Not that it's not insurmountable, but it is a consideration. Same-sex marriage is actually an *easier* answer."

Are you interested in what is easy, or what is equal? Because the easiest solution is to change nothing. But to shoot for some middle ground is unjustifiable amongst the logics in this thread that say so simply that never is it right for a majority to step on the rights of a minority. What about those people who are never fortunate enough to find someone they care that deeply about, or what about thoose who are polyamorous? (these people are very real) Why stop with gay? It's a two-bit compromise of self-serving logic, because it's an easier pill to swallow, even though it goes in the wrong direction from true equality.

Sadly, the Court of Appeals (majority) got it wrong. Historically, States began to regulate marriage for societal reasons, not having to do with procreation, but, for the purpose of structuring who inherits property. Both marriage licenses and birth certificates are a relatively "new" (last 150 years) phenomena.
In addition, marriages (of both opposite and same-sex)existed long before the Decalogue was scribed. At that point, two types of marriages existed, those sanctioned by religion, and all others.
Bringing this matter to current day, the decision should have addressed the difference between religiously sanctioned marriage and "civil" marriage. It did not.
Had those who hold conservative "values" fully analyzed the claim presented, and been intellectually honest, they would have concluded that the State's interest remains one of societal construct, thus allowing both 'religious based' (opposite sex) marriage and "civil" marriage (both opposite and same sex), and, in the process eliminating the clear discriminatory effect of the current statute.

Very good news! It looks like children's textbooks can still use the words mother and father or mom and dad. This is how nature intended it....the ying and the yang; ac-dc; the plug and the receptacle; etc. Anything other than the male-female gig is inorganic, it is unnatural. Nothing really to do with religion at all, it's all about nature, what is and isn't organic and/or natural....kinda like how magnets work.

i just don't understand why someone else's marriage is anyone else's business. it's not yours, mine or the government. it's a personal choice by two adults, I don't understand where everyone else thinks they come in

I've often wondered why there hasn't been a stronger lobbying force from the legal community to end anti-gay discrimination and permit marriage. Think of all those astonishingly rich divorce settlements! The truth is, in another few years, this issue will be long settled and gay people will be marrying and divorcing just like their straight neighbors. All you have to do is talk to teenagers and young adults about the issue now to see the wave of change that's on the horizon. My otherwise average, heterosexual teenage neices and nephews are as progressive on this issue as my most informed gay friends.

also " a man and a woman in a low conflict marriage"???!!!! ha!!! you'll be stressed to find that!!

Silversurfer, In that case, walk outside, grab the very first man and the very first woman you see and that would be a perfect couple because their biological parts are aligned.

Now on the other hand if you're talking about matching in terms of personalities and other factors, then physical body structure doesn't have anything to do with it.

Silversurfer,

As far as I can tell, I contain carbon and am therefore "organic". So does my partner. Our naughty bits do not repel each other with a force inversely related to distance, either, so I'm not sure what magnets have to do with it. Do you have sex with any woman that is close enough that the pull of your opposite "poles" (heehee) is enough to overcome inertia? (Wait, don't answer that.)

As for textbooks, what are you talking about? Do you think that allowing gay marriage means that "mom" and "dad" cease to have their meanings? Seriously, the incoherency and absurdity of your comment is only working against "your side".

Silversurfer,

Your argument doesn't hold water for the simple fact that sex between 2 males and/or 2 females is prevalent in many species (as is bisexuality) therefore making homosexuality just as "natural" as heterosexuality. Nice try though and thanks for playing.

Alyson,

Actually, my religion has no objection to same-sex marriages, and my minister just last month officiated and blessed our wedding. So religious marriages can be same-sex, right now, right this very minute, in Maryland. Civil marriages can't, though, for unconstitutional "reasons".

My ride will be here soon, but I just want to add that there's a rally tonight at 6:30 pm (two hours from now!!) at the First Unitarian Church in Baltimore and St. George's Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale. Please come and show your support for marriage equality! More info at the Equality Maryland site (you can google it.)

In the article there's a typo in paragraph six. The quotation incorrectly reads, "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 reasons." It should read, "our opinion should by no meand 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."

I found one additional gay rights cliche: opposing gay marriage was a characteristic of other mean people in history.

I never made any attack on homosexuality, but everyone I encounter is completely monolithic and inflexible. Unless I am all with you, I am the enemy. A wise professor once said to me-there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but it is naive to deny that this is a deviation from an optinal state, heterosexuality, not vice-versa, nor is it an equivalence. I now here arguments like it is better to be gay, we're all gay, etc. Are you people delusional? I am sure the responses will answer that question.

I am willing to be convinced, but you'll never convince me by name calling. Convince me in a way that is not full of irrational, emotional rants about fairness, psychology, outrageous statistics about how all people are really gay (you have to separate homosexual urges from a purely gay lifestyle, dolts), love, family values, pseudo-biology. I'd also like to know what benefits society accrues by allowing gay marriage. Really I would.

All I see is a gay rights movement living in a straw house. Year after year, it is the same tired stuff. I really don't have to care. Try to convince me why I should.

silversurfer: "Very good news! It looks like children's textbooks can still use the words mother and father or mom and dad. This is how nature intended it....the ying and the yang; ac-dc; the plug and the receptacle; etc. Anything other than the male-female gig is inorganic, it is unnatural. Nothing really to do with religion at all, it's all about nature, what is and isn't organic and/or natural....kinda like how magnets work."

Magnets, huh? Sorry buddy, but YOU are not the ultimate authority on what is "natural". If and when homosexuality, as mounting evidence suggests, *is* a natural state of being for some people, would you drop your objection to equal rights for your fellow citizens? I'm guessing no, because you're full of sh*t and are only trying to justify your bigotry.

You haven't even made a point. Marriage is a man-made institution, and all of human civilization is essentially "against nature". Do you live naked in a cave, silversurfer? Why not? All that matters according to your thinly velied homophobia is what's "natural" or "organic"? Hypocrite.

I wish you could hear how absurd you sound.

Y'know, the world would be a far better place if people would mind their own business. What folks choose to do, who they choose to love, and what goes on in their homes is none of my concern. Nor should it be.

People trying to control what others do with their lives, in an issue where it causes no physical harm to another human (like marriage), does concern me. Accept that not everyone has the same values, but know that everyone does have the same rights in this country. We don't live in a theocracy, thank goodness, and I'm tired of people trotting out their religion every time someone does something that offends them. That gay couple who got married down the street isn't going to bother you or your family any. Why do you care who other people marry?

Live your own life, try to be the best person you can be, and keep your nose- and your personal beliefs- out of other people's business.

Karen,

If your church's clergy officiated at a "marriage" without a State license being issued, it is not recognized as a marriage in the State of Maryland.

The issue for the government of Maryland, all branches, is whether or not the citizens of the State will continue to confuse the Constitutional "separation of church and State" with the unstated, yet clear, religious underpinnings of our laws. To do so results in marriage laws that discriminate; to not do so results in "civil marriage" being a civil right (as opposed to "civil marriage" being a religiously based right).

Additionally, if I were to admit to being a cigarette smoker while applying for a health insurance policy, I will be hit with a larger insurance premium due to my "high risk" lifestyle choice of using tobacco products.

Conversely, a homosexual male who also conducts himself in "high risk" behaviour[as borne out by the numbers put out by the Center for Disease Control - homosexual males(and intravenous drug users) have a much shorter life expectancy than most other sub-groups...and have higher medical costs due to their frequent transmission of hiv/aids, hepatitis, other std's...all this is a matter of public record], will likely NEVER be subjected to higher insurance premiums because attorneys will fight it as "discrimination". So, tell me why again that I, as a smoker who engages in a "high risk" lifestyle will be penalized financially, but a homosexual who practices an equally "high risk" lifestyle will not? Who's really being discriminated against?

And what of "hate crimes"? If I get my ass kicked, the perpetrator can be charged with assault & battery, etc. If a homosexual gets smacked around the perp is likely to face an "ad-charge"(an additional charge) as in a "hate crime". I don't receive that kind of extra legal protection when violence has been foisted upon me. I ask again, who really gets the special treatment?

Hey, you people who prefer your 'alternative lifestyle'. You oughtta be thankful you ain't livin' under 'Sharia Law'...then you'd REALLY experience discrimination of the worst kind...sanctioned acts of random violence against members in your ranks. I know, I research these Islamist countries all the time, in depth, and let me tell ya', they ain't nothin' nice to those who practice "alternative lifestyles". In fact, they're downright ornery. Again, why not just be grateful that you live in the best country on the fact of the earth and enjoy your existence within this far out universe as I do for most of my daze!

Try it, try just letting go and just living. Really.

"As far as I can tell, I contain carbon and am therefore "organic". So does my partner. Our naughty bits do not repel each other with a force inversely related to distance, either, so I'm not sure what magnets have to do with it."

**falls off the chair laughing**

Seriously. That would be a problem.

Have a good rally! UUs Unite!

Perhaps, Joe Schmoe, given all your conditions on how you wish to be pleasured by our persuasion, there is no convincing you. You refer to a "gay rights movement." Really, there is no such thing. There are just lots of gay people around the world reasonably requesting the same basic rights that their straight peers have. Why is that such a challenging proposition?

JoeSchmoe:

Impossible. You obviously just don't care about the fact that certain people in "the Land of the Free" are declared to be second-class citizens, are specifically singled out for separate treatment and don't enjoy the rights and privileges you and I enjoy (and take for granted). You never will care, because that's all a decent person would need to know. But future generations will look at your worldview with both confusion and anger because it is simply not compatable with what we proclaim to be. This is not a free country.

Stick (ref: On the other hand: you're not being tied to a fence rail. Gays act like they've had something taken away from them. Exactly when did the info that you can't marry each other become news to you? It's tradition in a Judeo-Christian country. We let you guys out of the closet, now this.)

How kind of you to 'let' me out of the closet. Meanwhile, something was taken away from me.

Hope.

You try living without it.

Silversurfer, since you decided to quote CDC information, this is a quote from their study: "Social and economic factors, including racism, homophobia, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM of minority races or ethnicities. Black and Hispanic men are more likely than white men to be given a diagnosis of HIV infection in the late stages of infection, often when they already have AIDS, suggesting that they are not accessing testing or health care services through which HIV infection could be diagnosed at an earlier stage [37].
The stigma associated with homosexuality may inhibit some men from identifying themselves as gay or bisexual, even though they have sex with other men [38, 39]. Some men who have sex with men and with women don't identify themselves as gay or bisexual [40]. Research among black men has shown that even if these men do not identify themselves as gay or bisexual, they do not engage in risky behavior more often than the men who do identify themselves as gay or bisexual [41]. This research suggests that elevated rates of STDs and undetected or late diagnosis of HIV infection may contribute to higher rates of HIV infection among black MSM. " According to CDC, the reason homosexual men have a higher risk of being HIV positive is partially due to homophobia and therefore lack of access to treatment.

As for your comparison of US to the Islamic states, I'm not sure if proving that we're better than the scariest regime is the most uplifting comment. EU has a higher living standard, average income, and many countries have legalized gay marriages.

Paul B

Never give up hope. The future of our society (i.e. the younger generation) could care less if 2 gay people who love each other get married. This generation will eventually grow old enough to vote and the fight will eventually come around to us. Thankfully not every youngster chooses to propogate the hate and fear that their parents attempt to teach them about people who are different then they are.

Oh, yeah, before I forget...the whole term "homophobic" is a bit of a canard. For instance, say I'm "afraid" of spiders, then my condition is "arachnaphobia". Hence this word "phobia" connotes obviously some sort of "fear". Well seeing as that I do not "fear" those who choose their homosexual alternative lifestyle, I soundly reject the phrase "homophobic" as it applies to a Libertarian such as myself. A far more accurate term is "homoapathetic". I could care less what other people do in their love lives, hence, I'm apathetic towards them rather than having a "fear" of them.

So please, in the future the far more accurate term is "homoapathy" rather then the canard "homophobia" which was foisted upon the public in order for the "alternative lifestyle" activists to "frame the debate" by using and establishing dialogue and phraseology designed to tilt the debate in their favor right from the get go.

This technique of "framing the debate" is quite effective when dealing with many people, however, when dealing with a crazed Libertarian such as myself who absolutely adores defying, disobeying, and competing with "the best & the brightest" amongst us(as well as the Politically Correct, the Nanny Staters, the Do-Gooders, the Doom & Gloomers, the Influential, et al.), "framing the debate is not quite so effective because I am not here to obey you and bow down to you. I am not here to "kiss your ring". I am not here to throw you a parade. I am not here to tell you how terrific you are. I am here to disobey you, to compete with you, to talk smack.

Just as a hybrid motor vehicle derives it's energy from multiple sources;(gasoline, special lithium battery, reintroducing the friction caused by the braking process back into charging the specially designed batteries); I too derive my energy from multiple sources - disobedience of politically correct people and policies, disobedience of influential public figures, ie. politicians, religious leaders, activists of all stripes, movie stars, TV celebrities, news anchors, professors, experts, journalists, know-it-alls. My life force gains a tremedous infusion of strength by exercising not only my freedom to disobey so many, but to also compete with them...compete, compete, compete. I don't even really care if I win or lose, it's the journey(I win a few and I lose a few anyway so I OK with acknowledging that I'm not gonna win 'em all...but it sure is a blast being alive and free so I can get in the game, so I can mix it up, so I can compete. Like a hybrid, my energy is derived from multiple sources - disobedience, competition, and music.

Silversurfer

If you are apathetic then could you please kindly shut up since you don't care one way or the other about homosexuals getting married.

Come one sequoia, convince me. You can't, can you. Your argument is that I should already be convinced. Why then can I not say that the preacariousness of your position should be obvious to you?

This reminds me of the debates with young internet users over downloading pirated content. Why it should be allowed should be obvious, and if you don't get it, you'll never get it, and in fact you are some special kind of moron for not getting it. Very intelligent way to make an argument.

I guess I'm a "bad person". Well then...BOO! Anyway, I'm out...'tis a gorgeous day here in southern California and I, unlike Orenthal James Simpson, am not incarcerated, so I will venture out on this glorious day in the motor coach, crank up the volume on the hi-fi, and take a drive to somewhere, anywhere, anywhere at all, it's enough for me to be free and alive in southern California under a gorgeous afternoon sun...with a slight zephyr reminding me I'm alive and cooling my jets a bit so I can relax, relax and enjoy my wondrous existence and this beautiful planet, country, region. Smile(I think I've got a hankerin' for some watermelon....yeah that's where I'll go, I'll go get some watermelon). Chow, for now.

The kind of bias I expect from the Post. There is nothing "controversial" about this law--as it has been in place for long before the gay activist agenda. Marriage has two components to it--unitive and procreative--both of which are impossible for gay "couples." Maryland, finally, realizes that. If gay couples want to be together, that's their business, but let's not pretend it's the "norm" and the same as for what marriage is intended. Codifying this "togetherness" as marriage is making it something that it can NEVER be. Thank God for the Maryland Supreme Court.

Gay Takoma Guy
"There are just lots of gay people around the world reasonably requesting the same basic rights that their straight peers have."

You already have the same basic rights. I do not consider being allowed to have a marriage license as a basic right, as states have set conditions on denying to people for scores of reasons. You act as if you were being kept out of heaven.

Joe Schmoe

Society would reap several benefits by allowing gays to marry. For one it would raise an increased tax base. Married people pay more taxes than if they were filing singly. The fact that homosexuals now raise children together means that society benefits by making that child and his/her parents a legal family entity in the same way that heterosexual people raising children together do.

Also where one partner may be a stay at home parent society benefits by having a parent at home to raise a child rather than having that child in daycare. It has been proven time and time again that children raised with a stay at home parent are much less of a burden on society than children of single parents or children with 2 working parents.

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons if I had more time to devote to it but there are 3 good ones to start with.

The media in America is a corrupt, ideologically liberal establishment. They have no objectivity and don't even try and hide it. That's why only 13% of American's view journalism as a favorable profession. Journalists are dishonest liars and Americans notice. The American people don't want liberal journalists who only tell half of the a story or favor America's enemies. The journalists in America are basically communists but you aren't allowed to say that anymore. They are anti-war, anti-capitalists, anti-god, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-family, anti-choice. The new name for this tumor is "progressive." They are communists/Marxists. Down with the liberal media.

Congrats Maryland Supreme Court. Homosexuality has happened all throughout history and we know how our Creator feels about this issue.

If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Leviticus 20:13

Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:24-27

This is a sad decision today. My partner and I had a ceremony in Baltimore last week, and we were hoping for a positive decision. We live in CA so let's hope the Governor will do the right thing and let gays have the right to marry!

The Christian Taliban is alive and well, as demonstrated by Greg. After we have eliminated the gay problem, we can start shunning menstruating women and we can stone adulterers in the street. Lots to look forward to....

Gay marriage doesn't endanger marriage, but divorce and adultery do.

If Maryland was truly interested in moral family values, then they would outlaw divorce and adultery.

Just clearing up a couple of misconceptions:

1) Being gay is not in itself a high-risk behavior that leads to HIV/AIDS, any more than being a poor woman of color is. High-risk behavior for contracting HIV includes unprotected sex between people of any gender, especially with multiple partners, and IV drug use with shared needles. It is a matter of mucus membranes and specific bodily fluids, not the chromosomes of those involved.

Comprehensive, realistic sexual education, improved access to condoms, needle exchange programs, and addiction treatment centers will bring down HIV infection rates and related insurance premiums, banning or legalizing gay marriage will have no effect.

2) Mugging, beating, raping, or murdering someone who happens to be gay (or a woman, or a person of color, or any other generally oppressed group) is NOT a hate crime. Mugging, beating, raping, or murdering someone solely BECAUSE they are gay (or a woman, or a person of color, etc.) IS a hate crime.

It is not some "special protection" that makes the punishment harsher for anyone who commits a crime against someone who falls into one of the specified categories. Hate crimes legislation is a way for us to stand up as a society and say that targeting someone because of who they are is wrong above and beyond the violent act itself- this is from the ADL:

"All Americans have a stake in an effective response to violent bigotry. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the victim's community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. By making members of minority communities fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups -- and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them -- these incidents can damage the fabric of our society and fragment communities."

3) I am extremely happy that I don't live under Sharia law. It's fantastic that I live in a country where I have at least some say in what goes on, and where our most treasured document, when not being shredded by our current administration, can be changed to reflect our evolving consciousness. I am not, however, willing to settle for less than full, first-class citizenship. I will do my patriotic duty & work to make this country even greater than it is by ensuring equality and justice for all who call this place home.

"You already have the same basic rights. I do not consider being allowed to have a marriage license as a basic right, as states have set conditions on denying to people for scores of reasons. You act as if you were being kept out of heaven. "

Actually SCOTUS addressed marriage as a fundamental right in Loving V. Virginia. Sorry you don't see it that way.

I'm merely pointing out that homosexuality is a sin and a lie. I can point out things in the bible about heterosexuality when it comes to adultery, pre-martial sex, or polygamy. All these are abominations in God's eyes. I for one don't want to stone adulterers or shun menstruating women because that wouldn't solve anything. I also have no problem with a person who is homosexual because we are suppose to love the sinner and hate the sin. Therefore you won't see me killing people like radical Muslims just to force my beliefs on you (since you insulted me by calling me a Christian Taliban)

"If Maryland was truly interested in moral family values, then they would outlaw divorce and adultery."

I agree with that.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
Genesis 1:27

I was created in God's image. I am gay.
The bible tells me God made me gay. What is the issue here?"

I was created in God's image. I am a Bestialist. What is the issue here?

To Greg: Hmmm. Leviticus. Isn't that the same book that declares that eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), and that touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean (Lev. 11:6-8)? If the State of Maryland followed Leviticus strictly, then the oyster industry and the game of football would both be in trouble.

Doesn't Leviticus also say that people who sleep with their in-laws should be burned to death? (Lev. 20:14) And that the owning of slaves is permissible, provided that they are purchased from neighboring nations? (Lev. 25:44) "Our Creator" sure has interesting standards for what's acceptable behavior.

a great day for marriage.

I am created in God's image and I am an alcoholic.

Greg just picks and chooses what parts of the Old Testament he wants to believe. Not the ones that would affect HIM, but just the parts that he can use to reinforce is own superiority and justify homophobia and small-mindedness.

Like I said, the Christian Taliban is alive and well in Maryland. Let's all party like it's 1450 BC!

inva said:
'Marriage has two components to it--unitive and procreative--both of which are impossible for gay "couples."'

Please explain why gay marriage would not be unitive?

Also, the procreative aspect has nothing to do with anything. Thousands of people get married with no intention of ever having children, and thousands get married who CAN'T have children. Unless you are suggesting that the government should mandate that all married couples must produce so many offspring in so many years?

inva said:
"Codifying this "togetherness" as marriage is making it something that it can NEVER be."

Why not?

I would just like to correct a few errors and omissions in the article, and cannot find a means to email the authors. First, Judge Harrell is still a member of the Court of Appeals. The author apparently is confused because Judges Wilner and Cathell, who joined the majority, ARE retired specially assigned judges in this case. (The Maryland Constitution, Art. IV, s 3, mandates that judges retire when they reach their 70th birthday.)
The brief analysis of the dissent by Judge Battaglia misses the most important point, which is that the plaintiffs alleged that Family Law Section 2-201 violates Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (the so-called ERA), and that Maryland cases construing Article 46 until now have required an exceedingly high burden known as strict scrutiny whenever state action creates gender-based classifications (as was the case here, according to the plaintiffs and the dissent). Thus, the principal point of contention here was actually that the majority applied a lower standard of review, the so-called rational basis test. The applicable standard of review was the dispositive issue in the case.
Chief Judge Bell agreed with Judge Battaglia's ERA analysis, but furthermore agreed with Judge Raker that FL 2-201 violates Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights, the Maryland Due Process Clause (derived nearly verbatim from the Magna Carta), even under the more lenient rational basis standard.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman from the very beginning (call it Adam and Eve if you wish). Gay people have also always been around. Only in our day has there beena move by gay people to marry.

Let them have civil unions with the basic entitlements of married people (e.g. inheritance, child custody, hospital visits).

Note that none (at least none of the major) Democratic presidential candidates favor gay marriage.

Homosexuality is natural. I was born this way by design - God's design. Or, if you are an evolutionist, by the laws of genetics. It is a inherent part of who I am. It is just that the majority of people are born with a different nature.

That being said, marriage should be an institution that supports all of a society's citizens. And, if it is my nature to be with someone of my same gender, so be it! We need less government, not more, meddling in our lives.

If I were a Chiropractor, or an Osteopath, or an Orthopedist, I can call myself by the term of Doctor and indeed, all 3 have Doctors Degrees of one form or another.

Also, a Lawyer, a Dentist, a Doctor of Science [D.S.], a Doctor of Pharmacy and a Ph.D. also hold Doctors Degrees of one form or another.

IN SHORT, ALL ARE DOCTORS AND THEY MAY REFER TO THEMSELVES AND TO EACH OTHER BY THE TERM DOCTOR, BUT THEIR DOCTERATES ARE ++++ NOT ++++ INTERCHANGEABLE, ONE FOR THE OTHER.

TRADITIONALLY, a legal or common law union between a MAN and a WOMAN was USUALLY for the purpose of PRIMARILY procreation, thereby creating a bond recognized by society as one MOST BENEFICIAL for the raising of a family by having children. THIS UNION IN ALL LANGUAGES WAS REFERRED TO AS MARRIAGE [or its equivalent in translation.]

The Concept of a Civil Union that would allow ALL the same benefits as marriage would be much more preferable for gay unions, but it is not seen that way because absent multiple and major federal and state legislative changes, it will not do this.

Thus to circumvent this hairy issue [no pun really intended - right] everyone is now latching unto the term of MARRIAGE as the solution to both stubborn and/or hypocritical legislative action or inaction respecting civil unions.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL HYPOCRITS INVOLVED.

As an attorney, it seems perfectly clear to me, all emotion and politics aside, that the Court's decision is sound. The majority in no way suggests that there can't ever be gay "marriage" in Maryland. They only said what is obvious--(1) no current legislation in Maryland sanctions it; and (2) the Constitution of Maryland does not require the State to sanction it. It's quite simple, really. I applaud the majority for having the sense to stay out of politics and for respecting the formidable doctrine of separation of powers. All first year law students who paid attention in class know that the framers intended for most matters to be decided by representative legislatures and not by the judiciary. It only makes sense in a democracy that the most powerful branch of government should be the most representative branch--the legislature. If you don't like the decisions they're making, you have the right and opportunity to vote them out. It is unfair to the rest of the represented people for any special interest group to catapult over the legislature and try to convice the courts to do the legislature's job.

Steph,

"All first year law students who paid attention in class know that the framers intended for most matters to be decided by representative legislatures and not by the judiciary."

Yeah, except for those matters that are a question of fundamental rights. If the legislature voted tomorrow to take back women's right to vote, would that be constitutional? Is that their place? What if they voted to revoke the citizenship of people of hispanic descent? Is that their place? What if they voted to reinstate miscegenation laws, which clearly violate the fundamental right to marriage as established in Loving? Not their place, is it? Oh yeah - checks and balances. I don't know about you, but I learned about those way back in 9th grade civics class, but maybe you weren't paying attention?

"They only said what is obvious--(1) no current legislation in Maryland sanctions it; and (2) the Constitution of Maryland does not require the State to sanction it."

(1) is a misstatement. It's not that no legislature currently sanctions it - it's that current legislature SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS it when without that specific law, no reason would exist to deny the plaintiffs their marriage licenses.

(2) is just false; that's why the decision was wrong. There are many ways that the Maryland Constitution DOES require it. Pick any one:

a) There is a fundamental right to marriage (see Loving). "Marriage" is not defined as "what is currently sanctioned", because that would render the Loving decision nonsensical. Rather it is defined broadly as being granted a marriage license, absent any age/consent or consanguinity issues. Under this necessarily broad definition of the fundamental right to marry, it is clear that same-sex couples' right is being infringed on.

b) There are two seperate, distinct, related instances of gender discrimination to be found in this law. It is clear that in each case where an applicant is female, the co-applicant is singled out and denied on the basis of her sex. Relatedly (but separately), in each case where an applicant is male, the co-applicant is singled out and denied on the basis of his sex. These instances of sex discrimination, by the ERA and current jurisprudence, require strict scrutiny, which the reasoning doesn't meet.

c) Heck, the reasoning around this law is so poor and circular and tangential that it doesn't even meet the lower standard of rational basis, rendering a) and b) entirely superfluous (but still valid.)

More evidence that this decision is baloney:

The plaintiffs invoked a case called "Giffin", where a court found that a woman was granted custody of her daughters illegitimately on the basis of her sex relative to theirs.

The court of appeals holds that this case supports the notion that the ERA is meant to protect men and women from class distinctions and that the law in question does no such thing, because men and women are treated equally by it.

BUT WAIT.

This woman was granted custody because she's female and her daughters are female and "need female influence". That was wrong.

It's not hard to imagine a man, by the same reasoning, being awarded custody of his sons because they "need male influence" - this is, after all, one of the 'reasons' my partner and I are regarded by the anti-gays as an unfit parent to boys.

Giffin requires that this too would be wrong, because the ERA means that "the grant of child custody no longer could be based on pre-conceived notions, based solely on the parents' sex, concerning the care a certain parent was capable of providing."

Clearly this DOES support the plaintiff's case: this type of custody decision works both ways, against women with sons, and against men with daughters. It is so clearly a parallel situation to a woman who wants to marry a woman, and a man who wants to marry a man, and it is so clear that the ERA was invoked as a reason it couldn't be done, whether it was a mother or a father facing the adverse decision.

Constitutional rights are individual rights, no matter how much the court wishes they weren't.

I feel like Yossarian here. The judges are saying that this Giffin case supports their decision, but it just... doesn't. It doesn't at all!

And what does Hoffman vs. Hoffman have to do with it??

"...rejecting an ex-husband's argument that the award of alimony payments to his ex-wife violated [the ERA] on the basis that the statute governing the award of alimony is sex-neutral such that either party to a marriage is entitled to an award of alimony if appropriate..."

The awarding of alimony IS sex-neutral on an individual-rights basis, which is why the argument was rejected. The man in this marriage was not ordered to pay alimony *because he was a man*. I am, however, denied a marriage license with my partner *because I am a woman*. The way these judges try to use Hoffman vs. Hoffman in their argument is completely illogical and indeed the implications of the case are *contrary* to what they say they are.

And despite the earnest wishes of these judges, the Burning Tree decision applies just as much to a male-excluding club as it did to the female-excluding club.

This alone invalidates the idea that the ERA can only be invoked if a law specifically targets or burdens only ONE of the sexes.

Duh.

It's also cute that they argue that because the ERA was enacted specifically because women have historically faced discrimination 'based on an archaic precept that women ... are inferior', it therefore has no bearing on this case.

Right, and therefore it's perfectly fine if a law discriminates against a man, right? Because the intentions of the framers was to redress women's grievances? Except that it's not. Members of both sexes, on an individual basis, are protected from having decisions about their legal rights made on the basis of their sex, whether or not the end result is the subjugation of women.

So the end-run around the will of the people failed, why not take it to the Legistlature?

Another Marylander,

The courts exist as a check on both the legislature and the executive. The legislature enacted an unconstitutional statute in 1973. Attempting to finally overturn it - on constitutional grounds - is not an "end-run around the will of the people" except in the sense that the will of the people is unconsitutional and SHOULD therefore be struck down.

What were you doing while you were skipping civics class?

Since the courts failed to do their job, we will take it to the legislature. Unfortunately, it's hard (and should not be required) for a fairly unpopular minority to get the majority to vote to "allow" them their rights. Homo-hating churches are powerful, and the citizenry has stopped understanding that their biblical interpretations and "gut feelings" are not actually a good enough basis for a law.

Look. The ruling says,

"[It] does not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class. Nor does the statue, facially or in its application, place men and women on an uneven playing. Rather, the statue prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct."

But this is the truth: this reasoning only works if you ignore individuals. In marrying R the individual (my partner), men and women are indeed separated into discrete classes for the purposes of granting to one class (men) benefits (approval of a marriage license) at the expense of the other class (women). It does not prohibit "the same conduct" to men and women equally. It prohibits men from marrying a male individual, and women from marrying a female individual. Those actions can never be "the same conduct" because the individual in question can never be *the same individual* for both a man AND a woman.

In a same sex marriage how would courts decide who would pay alimony or palimony if the couple were to divorce?

The same as they would in any other divorce. He or she who makes the most money loses.

Re: Joe Schmoe's post "A wise professor once said to me-there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but it is naive to deny that this is a deviation from an optimal state, heterosexuality, not vice-versa, nor is it an equivalence." Well, who gets to define "optimal"? And what exactly do Joe and his buddies mean by "the norm". I guess it hasn't occurred to them that a population in which 100% of the humans are heterosexual is actually not the norm at all. Instead, it seems that nature's optimal state prefers for a certain non-zero percentage of the human population to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. It has been this way throughout antiquity, it is this way now, and we see the same kind of behavior in other species. It's not a defect, there's no such thing as sin involved, it's just a natural variation. It just IS - there doesn't have to be a judgment around it.

By our very existence as human beings, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are beings of value. We are not "trivial" as someone cruelly suggested - we are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, we are your friends and colleagues. People care about us and we influence the lives of many others in positive ways. Is it not better to make sure our families are taken care of, no matter how one defines family?

My view on why some are so anti-gay marriage is that these people (a) are self-righteous, and (b) when a group in power is forced to share power with another group, they always feel threatened. Currently marriage is viewed not as a right, but as a privilege by many heterosexuals. It's like a country club that the glbt community wants to gain entrance to, but the members just won't let us in. Usually that happens because of snobbery and contempt, not wanting to mix with people who are different, not wanting to share resources/advantages, not wanting to give up power. But this is really a false choice - there's no sharing of power, no loss of resources. It's simply opening up opportunities and making life easier and more secure for more people. It doesn't have to be a referendum on whether it's "right or wrong" to be gay, neither does it have to mean redefining marriage.

It's unfortunate that the judges and many in society feel that the protections that marriage affords should be left up to public consideration. The judges don't want to be labeled "activist judges" (screw George W for perpetuating that term). If we left civil rights for blacks up to a vote back in the 60s, how do you think that would've come out? The majority does NOT always act in the interest of people who deserve rights and protections. I'm truly disappointed that the Maryland high court didn't rule for marriage on behalf of these couples - contrary to what Bush and other conservatives say, the courts are precisely the places where these battles should be fought. I feel awful about this decision and for the plaintiffs in the case. But to Joe and all the other anti-gay folks on this blog, rest assured that your kind will one day be in the minority - maybe then you'll know what it's like to feel so powerless and put upon. I hope you live to see the day that gay marriage is legal all across the country, because it's coming and there's no way you can stop it.

that bible excuse is some real bs.
if there really was a god i doubt s/he would care about religion
let alone your sexual preference.
god should love all of his/her people
god made you the way you are for a reason
if there is a god.
accept the way people are made.
smartness ftw.

It looks like the Post has cut off the opportunity to comment on many of the news stories on Washingtonpost.com.

Let's be clear. Gays have the same rights as the rest of the society. They can get married, they can get divorced, have kids, etc. Of course if they do marry, it must be a member of the opposite sex - that's what defines marriage. Marriage is a husband and wife relationship. If you want to join with someone of the same sex, well we don't call that marriage; we might call it a civil union, a partnership - pick your term - just don't try to call it marriage. Some may think that view intolerant. Well, they're right. But it's no more intolerant than those who don't care for the status quo, and want to change the definition of a common term - just to suit their fancy.

Sorry Karen, but it was you who appears to have slept through your civics classes.

Yesterday's decision proves that the statue passed by the Legislature in 1973 was 100% Constitutional.

Perhaps your bitterness concerns the fact that you know the Legislature will never pass a law recognizing "same-sex" marriage?

"Let's be clear. Gays have the same rights as the rest of the society. They can get married, they can get divorced, have kids, etc. Of course if they do marry, it must be a member of the opposite sex - that's what defines marriage."

Works for me. All of us lesbians will all go out and marry gay men and live with our husbands and their lovers in one bedroom and ourselves and our lovers in another.

Then all the "marriage is between a man and a woman" folks will be happy.

So tell me -- that protects marriage as an institution how????

Yes, the Post selectively, inconsistently, and arbitrarily removes posts on here. The Post says it removes personal attacks. Well, the homophobes come out blazing on here with analogies to beastiality and pedophilia, and launching the "abomination" grenade, which are personal and disgusting attacks on all gay people, yet the Post does nothing. So much for the "liberal media."

So... what exactly is our Founding Document? The Constitution or the Bible?

Another_Karen,
Whether or not you - or - other folks are happy is up to the individual.

The point remains that marriage is defined as the joining of a man & a woman. Is that discriminatory? Well, yes it is. But that's what society does - it discriminates - choosing some things over others. Am I discriminated against because I can't drive 70mph down a perfectly good residential road? Yes I am. Am I discriminated against when I want to have 5 wives - even though - I adopt a belief system that thinks it good to have many wives? Yes I am. You see there are lots of things that lots of folks would like to do. And we as a society - each generation, defines - discriminates even - deciding what is best for the whole. Is everyone going to be happy with the laws in place? Probably no. So your task is to change the hearts & minds of the majority. If you find that a difficult task, you may want to reexamine your belief system. Maybe there is good reason your beliefs are outside the norm.

JV,
It discriminates against no one to have a law limiting speed limits: it applies to all who drives over that limit. Conclusion: nonsensical argument.

Polygamists are not denied the right to marry based on their sexuality and an inherent part of their being. Thus, they can indeed marry someone to whom they are emotionally and sexually oriented towards. It also tends to have a deleterious effect on women in particular by treating them as chattel.

And as for what is "best for the whole," nothing is good for the whole that discriminates against people based on who they are when their actions hurt noone. The opinion of the majority in this area has no business dictating who gets what rights. And, the opinion of the majority certainly does not mean that one in the minority should adhere to a different "belief system" that is within "the norm."

All of your arguments are ridiculous, asinine, and thinly veiled bigotry.

Jim,

Actually the majority does get to determine who gets what rights - by definition. Felons lose the right to vote. I don't think you need me to cite numerous examples where the majority grants the rights. Even the rights of blacks (which actually where self-evident) had to be ratified by a majority of the states.

And by the way, you make my point by stating that speeding doesn't discriminate - unfairly. That is, generally everyone caught speeding is cited. In the same way no one is prevented from marrying - as long as the law is followed. You say the law is an @ss - that is your prerogative.

In the end however, no one is asking you to adhere to any belief system (on the contrary you are demanding that I adhere to your belief system). There is simply the assertion that society defines it's laws.

Sorry Tom, but the analogies to beastiality, pedophilia, and "abomination" are allowed because they are accurate above all else.

I agree with the person that wrote:

Men pretending to be women
Women pretending to be men
Pretend 'marriages'
Pretend 'families'
Why do the rest of us have to agree to
a fantasy?

I believe in truth and the world has no concept of truth - not all, but many taint it with relativism.

God uses the word ABOMINATION. He said that it is and ABOMINATION.

God said it, I believe it; and that settles it. All major religions of the world believe it is an abomonaiton to God-not just Christians

It's not about being right or wrong; it's about HOLDING UP THE TRUTH OF GOD
Not making the truth INTO a lie (the first part of the book of Romans)
read first part of this post re: pretending

Just as with anything, we make our choices and after time, we want to justify it and demand everyone accept it.

God's Word, not mine.

I think people should be able to marry whom ever they want to.why should the courts be able to make the decisions for us.the courts dont have to live our life just one day i would like to see one of those stuffy shirts live the gay life to see what we go through