From the BaltimoreSun.com

Opinion

Marriage Equality

January 22, 2006

In deciding that Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock has put Maryland squarely on the side of progressive forces that are rightly following a broad societal trend. The decision will activate both sides of the debate, perhaps leading to proposals to amend the state constitution. Whatever else happens in court, the state should move to extend, and not restrict, Judge Murdock's vision of equal rights.

The immediate victors are the nine gay and lesbian couples and one surviving same-sex partner who filed suit against five county clerks for refusing their marriage license applications because of a 1973 state law that recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman. With legal help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the gay partners argued mainly that the law violates the state constitution's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender and that it violates the constitution's guarantee of equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation.

Judge Murdock found that the statute's "unjustified discrimination based on gender" was sufficient to render it unconstitutional and therefore invalid as it has been used to prevent same-sex marriages. She also rejected the argument that prohibiting same-sex marriages is rationally related to the state's interest in having children raised by their biological, heterosexual parents or in promoting the best interests of children. There was no reasonable connection, Judge Murdock found, between preventing gay marriages and an increase or decrease in the number of heterosexual marriages or the number of children born to those marriages.

While the ruling is a strong endorsement for same-sex unions, it's just one step in a continuing legal struggle. Nothing will change while the state appeals the decision, and it's unclear how long it will take for the matter to be resolved by the state's Court of Appeals. But for now, the ruling puts Maryland in the forefront of the several states, including California, New York and Washington, that are considering expanding the definition of marriage.

In the meantime, more recognition for gay rights came from Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. when he proposed legislation last week that would make it easier for same-sex couples to make medical decisions for each other, one of the major concerns of those who filed the legal challenge. As welcome as the proposal might be, the challengers would ask why gay partners have to continue to rely on piecemeal extensions of privileges, particularly in matters of health care or survivorship. Judge Murdock, at least, is correct that they should be granted those rights in marriage.