Same Sex Marriage

M aryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler advanced the cause of civil rights in Maryland yesterday with his opinion that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The decision is not only a huge victory for the gay and lesbian community but also for the principles of equality and fairness to all. With Washington on the verge of allowing same-sex marriage - as recent efforts to send the District statute to voter referendum have proven unsuccessful - the issue was at Maryland's doorstep.

On May 17, 2004, the 50th anniversary of the historic U.S. Supreme Court civil-rights ruling Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, another civil-rights milestone was reached. In Massachusetts, thousands of lesbians and gay men were married -- the first legal same-sex marriages in the United States. (Same-sex marriage is legal in several other countries, including Canada.) For those like the two men who had been together for 51 years or the lesbians who tied the knot after 27 years and three children together, the legal recognition of their love and commitment was long-awaited and hard-won.

Gay rights advocates won a major victory when the Massachusetts high court struck down a ban on same-sex marriages this week - but that powerful precedent will not be easy to duplicate as both sides prepare for a state-by-state battle that could last a decade or longer. If Massachusetts follows up by legalizing gay marriage, same-sex couples who obtain licenses there can return to their home states and file suit demanding legal recognition, accelerating a social, religious, political and legal struggle over the nature of marriage in American society.

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.

WASHINGTON - The Republican-led Senate dealt a bipartisan rebuke to President Bush yesterday as it blocked a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, squelching for the moment a politically volatile measure that is a top priority for him and his conservative base. Bush said in a statement that he was "deeply disappointed" by the defeat in the Senate, and he implored the House to take up the amendment. The vote came after a debate that raised the profile of the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage just as the presidential race is entering an intense period.

The former chief operating officer of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington has called on the organization to reverse its recent decision to change health benefits for employees' spouses, a move designed to avoid legitimizing same-sex marriage. Tim Sawina, who was until last year one of the group's highest-ranking executives, called the elimination of spousal health benefits "devastating" and "wrong" in a letter Wednesday to the governing board of the social service organization.

When the captivating Rev. C. Anthony Muse took the pulpit at the funeral of a fellow state senator last month, he repeated a phrase throughout his eulogy like a gospel choir singing a refrain: "Well done, Senator Britt, we'll take it from here." To many listeners in the pews that day, the phrase was a poignant way for Muse to pay tribute to the late Sen. Gwendolyn T. Britt and her long history as an activist. But the gay and lesbian attendees, who were shifting in the pews to exchange knowing looks, hoped the phrase meant something more.

Just four months after an alliance of conservative Christians was threatening a churchgoer revolt unless President Bush championed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, members say they have been surprised and disappointed by what they call a tepid response from the pews. Most of the groups supporting the proposed federal constitutional amendment concede that it appears all but dead in Congress for this election year. As Massachusetts prepares to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage tomorrow, several high-profile conservatives say they are pinning their hopes mainly on reaction to events there, betting that scenes of gay weddings in Provincetown may set off a public outcry around the country.

The walls did not fall in on the little house on Hamburg Street in South Baltimore when the U.S. Senate voted 85-14 earlier this month to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriages, discouraging acceptance of such unions by the states.Nor did the two women who live in the house collapse, though this issue has been the pivot of their lives for nearly six years. They were disappointed, but saw it coming. Their reactions could be defined in a word: contempt.The Defense of Marriage Act, as the federal legislation expected to be signed into law by President Clinton is called, "is a product of election-year politics," said Ninia Baehr.

For years, Ninia Baehr and Genora Dancel have hoped for something the law doesn't allow: They want to get married. For most couples, that is a private choice. But for these two women, Ms. Baehr notes, "Our private life has always been a political issue."Now, more than ever, that is true. The issue this Baltimore couple helped start in Honolulu -- on Dec. 17, 1990, when they applied for a marriage license, along with two other homosexual couples -- has followed them across the nation to Maryland.