Same Sex Marriage

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.

BOSTON -- Back in 2004, a month before the first wedding bells rang for same-sex couples, then-Gov. Mitt Romney offered his opinion that "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." It wasn't that he wanted to protect Massachusetts' reputation. He wanted to protect the country from what he regarded as Massachusetts' folly. For that purpose, Mr. Romney unearthed a 1913 law that said couples couldn't be married here unless the unions would be legal in their home states.

Majority opinion Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr.: 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. It is clear that homosexual persons, at least in terms of contemporary history, have been a...

WASHINGTON -- Gary Bauer would not be America's shortest president. He is two inches taller than James Madison's 5 feet 4 inches. But Mr. Bauer's most impressive numbers are:In the last election cycle, his political action committee raised $7 million -- more than Dan Quayle or Lamar Alexander raised. This was in addition to the $15 million raised by the Family Research Council that Mr. Bauer heads. Granted, the FRC is a nonprofit organization, so contributions are tax-deductible and, unlike political contributions, can exceed $1,000.

WASHINGTON -- In a major defeat for the campaign to gain a right for homosexual couples to marry, the Hawaii Supreme Court has reinstated a law that allows a marriage license only to a man and a woman.Hawaii was one of two states where gay rights advocates had been hoping to establish same-sex marriage as a right under the state constitution. That effort ended with the state highest court's decision, issued late Thursday.The issue of same-sex marriage remains open in Vermont, where the state Supreme Court held a hearing on a similar test case nearly 13 months ago. That court has set no deadline for a final ruling.

WASHINGTON -- Voters in Alaska and Hawaii, in the most decisive defeats yet for homosexual marriages, took that issue out of their courts Tuesday to head off potential rulings in favor of such unions.Those were the first states where it has appeared likely that same-sex marriage would become a state constitutional right. If either state allowed such unions, other states might have to recognize the marriages if the couples moved or traveled elsewhere.In Alaska, voters by a 68-32 percent margin rewrote the state constitution to declare that no marriage in the state is legal unless it is "between one man and one woman."

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court spurned a plea yesterday for constitutional protection for the private lives of homosexual partners, including their choice to commit themselves to each other in a ceremony similar to a wedding.Without comment, the court rejected a case from Georgia that had been closely watched for any sign that the justices might make constitutional law more tolerant of gay and lesbian couples' lifestyles.There was no indication why the justices refused to hear the case, the most significant gay rights dispute to reach the court in its current term.

WASHINGTON -- In a major ruling against homosexuals who seek to marry, a federal appeals court has decided that government officials have broad power to fire or refuse to hire an employee who formalizes a relationship with a gay partner.The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, could set the stage for the first Supreme Court test on constitutional issues surrounding the increasingly heated controversy over same-sex marriages.In a rush of legislation during the past 18 months, Congress and 23 states have passed laws to condemn such unions, labeling them a basic threat to the survival of the institution of marriage.

THERE ARE AT LEAST two key issues that divide proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage.The first is whether legally recognizing same-sex unions would strengthen or weaken the institution.The second has to do with the basic understanding of marriage itself.The advocates of same-sex marriage say that they seek to strengthen and celebrate marriage. That may be what some intend.But I am certain that it will not be the reality.Consider: The legal union of same-sex couples would shatter the conventional definition of marriage, change the rules which govern behavior, endorse practices which are completely antithetical to the tenets of all of the world's major religions, send conflicting signals about marriage and sexuality, particularly to the young, and obscure marriage's enormously consequential function -- procreation and child-rearing.

PALO ALTO, Calif. -- In many ways, the Levinsons are the very profile of a traditional couple. They share a last name, a mortgage, two small children and two nondescript dogs. One of them is a stockbroker and the other ''an at-home mom.''On a typical sun-filled Sunday afternoon, they come back from church, put the children in for a nap, and contemplate trying again to put together the doll house that came with the manufacturer's infamous promise that it was ''easy to assemble.''But the Levinsons are both women, both lesbians.

Former governor now supports gay marriage Tom Schaller is commended for his thoughtful commentary in the Baltimore Sun regarding marriage equality for same-gender couples ("Md. should be a leader on gay marriage," Aug. 25). While serving as Prince George's County executive and governor of Maryland, I was a forceful advocate for enacting laws that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Despite our successes, however, in addressing employment, housing and public accommodations discrimination against gays and lesbians, I was firm in my statements that I believed "marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Given the timing, it's hard to view the executive order signed Wednesday by President Barack Obama extending some benefits to domestic partners of federal employees as more than an attempt to appease a gay community unhappy with the White House's seeming indifference to its cause. Certainly the decision is helpful for gay federal workers, but it's also overdue and inadequate - it does not, for example, include full health benefits. Many companies have already done more, and so have a growing number of states, cities and towns.

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is exploring whether same-sex marriages performed in other states can be recognized in Maryland, a move that could open an avenue for legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples who have been rebuffed by the courts and legislature here. The exercise puts Gansler - a Democrat and vocal proponent of same-sex marriage - in a difficult position. Maryland law clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but the state also adheres to a long-standing legal principle that generally acknowledges couples married elsewhere.

With legislators voting to approve same-sex marriage in Maine and New Hampshire last week, the momentum for change in marriage laws is building. Soon, Rhode Island may be the only New England state that does not recognize gay marriages. Iowa already permits them. California did briefly. Last week, members of the City Council in Washington, D.C. voted overwhelmingly to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Maryland, where the law requires marriage to be between a man and a woman and where attempts to overturn that requirement have been bottled up in legislative committees, could yet join the national trend.

Providing bounty to those in need Kudos to the Swirnow family for continuing their practice of donating turkey dinners to some of Baltimore's most needy families ("Providing dinner for 21,000," Nov. 23). In an economy that begs business owners (and individuals) to hold onto their shrinking resources, the Swirnows understand that our economic distress is all the more reason to contribute to help meet the needs of those who live the reality of limited resources each day. In 20 years of nonprofit work, I have never met someone who has consciously chosen to be poor, hungry or live in poverty because he or she was lazy, felt entitled or just wanted to kick back and let someone else provide for him. If you are grateful that your plate will be full this Thanksgiving, please step up to the plate and help provide bounty for those who struggle to survive each day. Let's feed people, fight disease, foster hope.

Traditional marriage still social cornerstone It is with real sadness that I have viewed the pictures and heard the words of homosexuals in California protesting the failure of the same-sex marriage referendum ("Gay activists direct ire over marriage ban at Mormons," Nov. 7). Their signs accuse opponents of same-sex marriage of being "homophobic" and call for stopping the "hate." Certainly, there may be some same-sex marriage foes who hate or are homophobic. But that does not describe those I know in Maryland who would oppose such a referendum.

In all but one way, the visitation-rights case that was decided in Baltimore County Circuit Court last week was typical of the legal wrangling that follows many a divorce - a couple splits up, the custodial parent doesn't want the ex to see the kid. But as the case title immediately tells you, Larissa S. v. Melissa B. is unique: As a same-sex couple, they couldn't have married, so they couldn't divorce, either. But that also means their quarrel over visitation rights is breaking new legal ground in Maryland.

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has rejected petitions to delay its historic same-sex marriage decision, clearing the way for gay couples to marry later this month. The court's action yesterday on the case - which makes it possible for same-sex unions to begin June 17 - was unusually quick. Most appeals, even unsuccessful ones, trigger a 30- to 60-day delay in the effective date of a ruling. Acting in closed session, the court voted 4-3 to reject petitions by Christian groups that it reconsider its May 15 ruling.

Gay and lesbian activists thought they had a friend in Martin O'Malley. As a progressive mayor in Baltimore, O'Malley attended gay pride parades and signed into law a measure to protect transgender people from discrimination. When he ran for governor, he said he supported civil unions and wanted to extend benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, as he had done for city workers. But two years into O'Malley's first term in Annapolis, neither has happened. He largely stayed out of the debate over legal recognition for same-sex unions that fizzled in the General Assembly, and aides say his financially strapped administration probably won't grant benefits for at least another year.

Rabbi Elizabeth Bolton was always vexed by the notion that despite the country's traditional separation of church and state, Maryland gave her - a religious leader - the power to change people's legal status by signing their marriage licenses. At the same time, the Reconstructionist rabbi from Baltimore was troubled by the state's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Finally, after contending with her conflicted feelings for years, she decided she had had enough: She told couples she would happily conduct religious wedding ceremonies, but to find someone else to sign their civil documents.