Transcript From The Washington Post

Maryland: Same-Sex Marriage

Online Chat with Christopher B. Shank
Maryland House of Delegates Assistant Minority Leader

July 8, 2004

Nine gay couples filed a lawsuit Wednesday contending that Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and should be overturned, setting the stage for the Maryland courts to become another front in the nationwide debate. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) dismissed the suit as part of the ACLU's "far left agenda" and said he would support efforts in the General Assembly to clarify the current law outlawing same-sex marriage.

Maryland House of Delegates Assistant Minority Leader Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington County) was online Thursday, July 8, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the lawsuits.

Programming Note: Equality Maryland Executive Director Dan Furmansky also addressed this issue in a discussion.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Burtonsville, Md.: What has happened to the division of church and state? If the civil right of marriage carries certain right and privileges, should not all citizens be able to participate in this right? Isn't that what the constitution and laws are supposed to support -- equal rights for all, not some?

Christopher B. Shank: Regarding the issue of gay marriage in Maryland, our annotated law is very simple and direct-- Family Law Article-- marriage in the state of Maryland shall be between a man and a woman. Legislators of the State of Maryland, whose role is to define various aspects of civil law, chose to define marriage this way. I see no reason to change this.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: OK - I've heard almost every side on the Gay Marriage Issue. My question is pretty simple: Who is it going to hurt if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry?

Christopher B. Shank: I believe that gay marriage would devalue the marriages of the states' man and wife couples. It also sends a signal to our youth that society no longer values the union of man and woman. As these societal values are chipped away, I believe our society suffers.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: I am tired of gays trying to get ever right every one else has. The line in the sand should be marriage. If they get that right, my marriage will be seriously degraded. How can we stop them?

Christopher B. Shank: Unfortunately, we've crossed the line too many times already in this state, but I agree with you. Marriage is defined very simply in the annotated code, but as a result the code can be changed. I believe that a constitutional amendment to Maryland's Declaration of Rights is in order. Such an effort would submit the proposition that marriage is between a man and woman directly to the people. I believe if such a referendum were held, the people of Maryland would vote overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the current status quo. In contrast, the ACLU and their allies feel their best shot is to convince unelected judges in the Court of Appeals to invalidate a duly passed law of the State of Maryland. Such judicial activism should not be tolerated and I am hopeful that the Courts reject this call to meddling. To stop them, please contact your legislators and advocate the passage of such an amendment.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Rep. Shank, thank you for taking questions today.

I have a 3-parter:

1. How does the state of Maryland feel about leaving each church to identify marriage on its own criterion (i.e., a Catholic church will not acknowledge a Jewish ceremony)? Therefore, gay couples may seek out religions that are empathetic?

2. I realize that the language in question is about marriage licenses, not necessarily church sponsored marriages.

How do you feel about modifying the language from marriage-license to civil union license, thereby separating apples from oranges?

In this senario, ALL non-church unions will be considered civil unions by the government for both straight AND gay couples thereby providing equality under the law. This is a reasonable compromise since church's will be able to acknowledge those marriages they wish (without government intervention) and the government can issue equal rights (without religious intervention).

3. Is is not, on a personal note, better for the nation to support loving, monogamous, families in a nation where divorce is more than 50 percent (among straight couples, I might add)?

Again, thank you for taking the time to be here.

Christopher B. Shank: Thank you for your question.
You anticipated the response to question 1 in your question 2. Maryland's law is not a religious statement, but a civil one, namely that marriage is only between a man and woman.

In regards to a civil union, I am also troubled by this concept, as it is the so called "slippery slope", marriage-lite we will call it. I think the concept of civil unions were created by the gay-rights community as a political strategy because they realize that gay marriage has very little support. But if it looks like a duck and... well you know the rest of the story. I see very little difference between the two and thus would oppose civil unions.

Finally, regarding the notion of supporting loving couples, if a homosexual couple wishes such a relationship, the state is not stopping them. However, our current law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The law reflects socio-cultural values of a given society. I don't see those values changing any time soon.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Del Shank:

Isn't the right worried about the historical fallout they will face blindly opposing gay marriage? It seems quite clear to me that the only argument against gay marriage is that it will hurt marriage -- but no evidence is given. To most thinking people, it seems that the opposition is based purely in hate. Those politicians who derided Loving v. Virginia might have been popular for a short time, but are held up as an example in public schools of how hatred and ignorance can infiltrate the highest levels of government. Isn't the Governor and yourself worried about how their grandchildren will view them?

Christopher B. Shank: It always amazes me how some on the left always villify conservatives for disagreeing with them. I don't worry about how my grandchildren will view me and I certainly don't hate homosexuals. If you want to debate, use logic, don't hurl insults.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Del. Shank,

Do you have any sympathy at all for families headed by same sex couples whose lives have been devastated by the inability to marry? Do you offer any solution to the problems faced by these couples?

And do you not feel that it is the role of the judicial government to interpret the constitutionality of laws? You use the concept of "judicial activism" to refer to rulings that you seem to disagree with.

Was Brown v. the Board of Education also judicial activism? Was the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to name George W. Bush president judicial activism? Where do you draw this distinction?

Finally, don't you find anything a bit unsavory about trying to remove the rights of individuals to seek their constitutional guarantees? If you did not feel that gay couples had these constitutional guarantees, why would you call for an amendment to the constitution?

I'd be happy to meet with you at any point in Annapolis for a civil and forthright dialogue on the topic. Perhaps it would be good for both of us.

Best regards,

Dan Furmansky
Executive Director
Equality Maryland

Christopher B. Shank: Let's face it, the 141 members of the House of Delegates and 47 members of the State Senate were elected to make the laws of Maryland. You know and I know that you don't have the votes to repeal this law, because even moderate to liberal Democrats aren't willing to make this change. So, you think your best shot is the courts. Judicial activism has a long record of some valid rulings and some not so. My point is, our founding fathers established a system of government where the people have a role in determining their laws, you know you cannot change the law through the democratic process, so you try to subvert the will of the people. Are you afraid of a referendum in Maryland? The answer is yes because you know you will lose.

_______________________

North Potomac, Md.: The Supreme Court has long considered marriage a fundamental right of man. Given that fact, what constitutes a compelling government interest in denying that right to same-sex couples?

Christopher B. Shank: As our nation was founded, the constitutional system gave the states the power to regulate all manner of civil law. Our law passed by a popularly elected General Assembly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Like so many other laws, it defines something, ie marriage. A society's laws codifies its values at any given time. Our values in this state and nation, aside from a radical few, are that marriage is between a man and woman.

_______________________

Help!: Dear Del Shrank,

Thanks for taking the time to be here today and answer our questions. I'm a relative newcomer to this debate, and I think I'm missing the basis of your argument. You keep talking about gay marriage "devaluing" marriage. I guess I'm just an amateur, but I have no idea what you mean by this. I feel like I'm missing half of the argument!

Could you please explain?

Christopher B. Shank: The state's defining marriage obviously descends from our Judeo-Christian heritage, like it or not. When I stood at the alter and made the vows to my wife, it was the most powerful commitment I could make. Such a commitment is recognized not only by my church, but the state has adopted the same values that our nation was founded on. Repudiating those values, cheapens the vows that I took.

_______________________

Olney, Md.: Do you believe that if homosexuals are permitted to marry, that society will change in a way that children who are heterosexual will become homosexual? And if you believe that, what is your basis for that belief?

Christopher B. Shank: I don't fear homosexuals. But I do believe that our societal values are worth perserving. There is a reason that marriage has been defined by religion and the state as between a man and a woman. I see no compelling reason why that should change.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: A number of inquisitors have raised the specter of Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. But a key difference between those cases (involving black equality) and these cases (involving gay marriage) is that gay people can own property and vote. I understand the Court's need to step in a protect democracy when a minority is prevented from participating in the democratic process. Black people subject to Jim Crow laws or segregation could not vote to assert their legislative preferences. But there are open gays in state legislatures and open gays in the Congress and gay advocacy groups that exist only to lobby state legislatures and Congress. Don't you think the theoretical ability of gays to get gay marriage legislation passed through the normal democratic process is what makes their attempt to do it through the courts so illegitmate? Isn't that why it is "judicial activism"? Because it is counter-majoritarian for no good reason?

Thank you.

Christopher B. Shank: Excellent point. In my recent memory, I can think of no effort by the homosexual rights lobby to change Maryland law. Instead there was an incrementalist approach, first the idea of civil unions. Oops, sounds too much like marriage. Instead they tried medical decisionmaking as the issue. That was amended to include everyone. I agree with your contention, they realize they have no shot, so they don't even waste their effort with the General Assembly. Something is wrong with this method of changing societal values without first involving a public debate.

_______________________

Temple Hills, Md.: Maryland's Constitution and Code of Regulations declares that marriage is between a woman and a man. It is obvious that they are challenging our laws based on the equal protection due process clause of the 14th Amendment. They claim that based on sexual orientation, they ought to share this right. However, nothing in the 14th Amendment express this right based on sexual orientation. The equal protection right is based on being naturally born or naturalized citizen, which I hope they are. Having said that, then when the 2004 General Assembly concluded it did not pass bills that constitutionally protected marriage between a man and a woman, which left the state open for this lawsuit.

Should the court decide that our current law is unconstitutional, what can the legislature do to counter?

Since they are arguing that when Maryland passed the Anti-Discrimination Act of 2001 to protect them in housing and employment and the law did not include same-sex marriage, it appears that they are attempting to catch you out of session and create law by the court system and not according to the process of legislation and a means to override anything legislation that could be passed to ban same-sex marriage?

In my opinion, the Anti-Discrimination Act of 2001 was itself unconstitutional because Maryland already has laws on the books that protect all its residents regardless of sex. Therefore, protecting Sexual Orientation was not necessary. What's next - Civil Unions for All and a new definition of family?

When are you guys going to take proactive measures to educate the citizens about the truth regarding this agenda and pass a ban on same-sex marriage as was done in Ohio and Virginia; to name a few?

Christopher B. Shank: Good point. But to my knowledge, the Declaration of Rights does not define marriage, only the annotated code.
We tried passing a constitutional amendment last session and were told that there was no pressing reason for why we needed this. Then yesterday, surprise we are going to sue! Had this announcment been made during session, it would have undercut their own argument.

Conservatives of both parties, actually got a vote on this issue directly on the floor of the House of Delegates. Once again, we were told, why do this now and the vote failed? I wonder what will they say next year?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I think Dan Furmansky raised some interesting and thoughtful points of discussion which you avoided in your response to him. Instead of challenging him, why don't you address his points in an equally thoughtful and respectful manner?

Sincerely,
A Republican who voted for Ehrlich

Christopher B. Shank: I believe this group and its members have been disingenous with the members of the General Assembly. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, we were told by these groups--why respond to a hypothetical issue not even before Maryland's courts yet? They use this issue to derail our bills, then wait until we adjourn to push the lawsuit.

Number two--I resent greatly the notion that the "people's house" is being circumvented in favor of the courts. Like it or not, society has a right to elect representatives to do their will.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: I'm a Republican who would vote against amending the Maryland constitution for this issue. All of my Republican friends feel the same way.

As I understand it, the majority of the General Assembly opposes such an amendment. Is this true or do you not have the votes to pass the amendment? Thank you for taking my question.

Christopher B. Shank: The issue was introduced by a delegate from Harford County to amend the constitution. I would much rather have the people of the state provide this direction on such an issue than unelected judges. The bill did not recieve a vote by the full House of Delegates and died by a narrow margin in the Judiciary Committee. I will say this, depending on how the Court of Appeals rules, I would bet good money that a majority of Marylanders would at least like the opportunity to decide this issue.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Sir-
You state repeatedly that the majority of Marylanders share your view opposing gay marriage. But where is the evidence of this claim? It seems most people is this state are willing to live and let live.

Christopher B. Shank: National polling has consistently found a large majority are opposed to gay marriage. That is why gay rights groups have changed their tactics towards the courts.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A number of people have tried to ask this and have gotten nowhere, but I'll try one more time. How precisely will your marriage be devalued if gays marry? And please don't just say it will happen. Tell me how.

Christopher B. Shank: Marriage here to fore has been based on a fundamental set of ground rules set by the church and the state. Changing those rules after the fact cheapens and devalues all the marriages that took place before.