Maryland's highest court rejected same-sex marriage yesterday and upheld the state's 34-year-old statute defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In a case watched closely around the nation, the Maryland Court of Appeals' 4-3 ruling dealt a blow to gay and lesbian advocates who launched their fight to overturn the state's marriage law three years ago. Yesterday, those advocates pledged to take the battle for marriage to the General Assembly, where two lawmakers have already said they will sponsor legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage applauded yesterday's 240-page decision, calling it a victory for traditional families and noting that most appellate courts in other states have reached similar conclusions. They also promised to mount a legislative effort of their own, vowing an aggressive push to explicitly ban same-sex nuptials in the state Constitution.
The court's majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the 1973 statute discriminates on the basis of gender. In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.
Within hours of the decision, many of the same-sex couples who had served as plaintiffs in the legal challenge gathered outside a Bolton Hill church to express anger and disappointment with the court's ruling.
Lisa Polyak and her partner of 25 years, Gita Deane, the lead plaintiffs, said they would keep fighting for legal protections for their 11- and 8-year-old daughters - security they said would only be guaranteed through marriage.
"I feel like this decision is needlessly cruel to gay and lesbian families," said Polyak, speaking through tears during a news conference at Brown Memorial Church. "I wish these judges would have to face our children today because I have to."
David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said that the decision, while disappointing, did not mark the end.
"This is not the first time that the courts have not gone our way in this and other civil rights battles and it won't be the last time," he said. "I believe the march of history in this country is indeed a march toward justice."
Though the majority opinion rejected same-sex marriage, lawmakers who have for years made unsuccessful attempts at barring the unions in Maryland's Constitution said a ban was needed now more than ever.
"I assure you the constitutional marriage amendment will be reintroduced this session," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel County Republican and leading same-sex marriage opponent in the House. "Without it, there's nothing to preclude a future legal challenge made on a different argument or a different basis. The legislature ought to have the courage and the desire to publicly vote on the issue of marriage."
Since Massachusetts became the first - and remains the only - state to allow gays and lesbians to wed in 2003, an explosive debate over same-sex marriage has played out in courts and state capitals nationwide. Cases are pending in California and Vermont, but Maryland had been eyed as a bellwether state because of its strong liberal leanings.
Twenty-seven states have voted to ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions, while a handful - Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire - have adopted civil unions, which confer some of the rights of marriage.
Maryland's journey to the national spotlight began in July 2004, when 19 gays and lesbians filed a lawsuit in Baltimore Circuit Court challenging the 1973 statute. In January 2006, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock held that the law was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Attorney General's Office immediately appealed the decision. Last December, the Court of Appeals heard arguments.
The bitterly divided court was passionate in its opinions, with four judges supporting the majority, two penning dissents and one concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In the majority opinion, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage. But he also reminded lawmakers that they have the right to consider a law permitting same-sex marriages.
"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure ... our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," he said.
Harrell was joined by judges Dale R. Cathell, Clayton Greene Jr. and Alan M. Wilner. Judge Irma S. Raker concurred in part and dissented in part. Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and Lynne A. Battaglia wrote dissenting opinions.