The U.S. state of Maryland does not currently perform same-sex marriage. In 2004, supporters of same-sex marriage filed a lawsuit, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway, which sought to allow these unions to occur in the state. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2006, and ruled against the plaintiffs on September 18, 2007, leaving the legal ban on same-sex marriage in place.
In recent sessions of the Maryland General Assembly, legislators opposed to same-sex marriage have attempted, without success, to enact an amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. However, in 2008 the General Assembly did pass two bills establishing a limited form of domestic partnership in the state. An effort to legalize same-sex marriage through the General Assembly in 2011 failed after several weeks of debate.[1]
Contents |
Maryland Family Law, Section 2-201, provides that "[o]nly a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in the state".[2]
Since 2008, the state has recognized certain legal protections that apply to domestic partners, defined as adults (of the same or opposite sex) in "a relationship of mutual interdependence" who are not related by blood and who are not in a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership with anyone else.[3] These protections include rights to hospital visitation and to make funeral arrangements for each other; in addition, a domestic partner's name can be added or removed from the deed of a residence without incurring a tax liability, as with married spouses.
The state does not have any form of domestic partnership registry, so couples may be required by officials or facilities to prove that their partnership exists by providing a sworn affidavit along with two other documents enumerated in the law, such as evidence of a joint mortgage, checking account, or insurance coverage, among others.[4]
On July 7, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union, in partnership with Equality Maryland, filed a lawsuit (Deane & Polyak et al. v. Conaway et al.) on behalf of nine same-sex couples and one man whose partner had recently died.[5] The plaintiffs had applied for marriage licenses in several Maryland jurisdictions, but their applications were denied by the respective county clerks, who are named as the defendants in the case. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.[6]
| “ | [It] was a disappointing decision. It was very mediocre and the reasoning was shallow and inadequate. They never explained how if procreation is somehow central to marriage—which legally it clearly is not—how denying gay people the right to marry promotes procreation. | ” |
|
—Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry on the 2007 decision, [7] |
||
On August 30, 2005, oral arguments from each side were presented to Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock. On January 20, 2006, Murdock ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, writing that "Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge. Family law §2-201 violates Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because it discriminates, based on gender against a suspect class, and is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interests."[8]
Judge Murdock immediately stayed the decision pending an appeal by the office of the Maryland Attorney General.[9] On July 27, 2006, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, agreed to hear the appeal directly, bypassing an intermediate court.[10] Oral arguments were heard on December 4, 2006.[10]
On September 18, 2007, the Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs in a 4-3 decision, leaving the statutory ban on same-sex marriage in place.[11]
While many civil rights groups hailed Judge Murdock's decision, opponents of same-sex marriage reacted by stepping up efforts to prevent legal recognition of such unions. Legislators opposed to same-sex marriage, led by Delegate Don Dwyer, have introduced several measures since the lawsuit was filed.[12]
During the 2006 and 2007 sessions of the Maryland General Assembly, legislators opposed to same-sex marriage proposed several amendments to the Maryland Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If enacted, such an amendment would have the effect of keeping the prohibition on same-sex marriage in effect regardless of the outcome of Deane & Polkay v. Conaway or any future lawsuit.
One such proposed amendment, HB 48, was rejected by the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates on February 2, 2006. Prior to the vote, some committee members, who opposed the bill, amended it to create civil unions while banning same-sex marriage. This resulted in a unanimous committee vote to reject the proposed constitutional amendment.[12] Other amendment proposals (such as SB 262 and SB 690) were also introduced in 2006, but none were passed out of committee before the session came to an end in April.
Two similar proposals (SB 564 and HB 919) were introduced in the 2007 legislative session; once again, neither of them was passed out of committee. The latter amendment, which would have also banned the discussion of same-sex unions in schools, was defeated in the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 12-8 on March 22.[13]
On March 7, 2006, Delegate Dwyer introduced a resolution in the Maryland General Assembly to impeach Judge M. Brooke Murdock, charging her with "violating the public trust, abuse of power, incompetence, willful neglect of duty, and misbehavior in office" for her Circuit Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage. Dwyer's resolution was defeated by a 19–3 vote in the Judiciary Committee on March 10.[14] Dwyer has also announced an intention to initiate impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Gansler, in reaction to Gansler's legal opinion finding that same-sex marriage could be recognized in Maryland.
The Maryland legislature voted down a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the state. In the same session House Bill 398, which would have barred the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, was defeated in committee.[15]
State Senator Gwendolyn Britt of Landover Hills and Delegate Victor R. Ramirez of Mount Rainier were expected to submit a bill during the 2008 session to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland.[16] Britt died on January 12, 2008. On January 25, 2008, House Bill 351 was introduced to amend Section 2-201 to define marriage as between "two people, not otherwise prohibited from marrying."[17] A bill in the Senate was also introduced by Senators Richard Madaleno and Jamie Raskin in Britt's place.[18] Roughly one quarter of each chamber has signed on as cosponsors of the bill.[17][18] If passed, it would have become effective October 1, 2008.[19] The House bill was heard by the House Judiciary Committee on February 28, 2008.[20] The hearings were taped by Maryland Public Television.[20]
Equality Maryland held a rally in support of the bills on February 11, 2008.[21]
Although neither of the same-sex marriage bills were passed, the General Assembly did establish a form of domestic partnership in Maryland by the passage of two pieces of legislation, Senate Bill (SB) 566 and SB 597. SB 566 [3] includes 11 protections for domestic partners, including hospital visitation and the making of funeral arrangements for each other; SB 597 [22] allows a domestic partner's name to be added or removed from the deed of a residence, without incurring a tax liability, as with married spouses.
According to the General Assembly's own summary of SB 597, domestic partners are defined in that state as adults (same-sex or different-sex) in "a relationship of mutual interdependence" who are not related by blood and who are not in a marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership with anyone else.[3] The law did not establish a domestic partnership registry, so couples may be required by officials or facilities to prove that their partnership exists by providing a sworn affidavit along with two other documents enumerated in the law, such as evidence of a joint mortgage, checking account, or insurance coverage, among others.[4]
The two bills were signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley on May 22, and came into effect on July 1, 2008.[23]
Like the 2008 legislative session, two bills on same-sex marriage faced the legislature. A bill that would have amended the Maryland constitution to ban same-sex marriage died in the House Judiciary Committee with a vote of 13-6-1.[24]
In 2011, the General Assembly considered a bill to legalize same-sex marriages in the state. Governor Martin O'Malley, a Catholic, stated that would sign it, against the urges of Archbishop of Baltimore Edwin Frederick O'Brien, who wrote to O'Malley asking him to resist pressure to legalize same-sex marriage.[25] On February 24, 2011, the bill passed the Senate by a 25-21 vote. The State Senate was thought to be the biggest obstacle to the bill,[26] but it encountered opposition in the State House from black Democratic lawmakers from Prince George's County, who cited religious objections, and conservative Democrats from southern Maryland and the Baltimore suburbs. About a third of the chamber's 98 Democrats opposed the bill.[1][27] The debate pitted openly gay lawmakers against activists from the civil rights era.[1] Delegate Emmett C. Burns, Jr. said: "If you want to compare same-sex marriage to civil rights as I know it, show me the Ku Klux Klan that invaded your home."[1] Several delegates who originally co-sponsored the bill began to express doubts after being lobbied by church-going constituents , including Tiffany Alston, who delayed the bill's vote in the Judiciary Committee by skipping the voting session.[26] The bill passed the committee after its chairman, who rarely votes in committee, voted for it.[26] The House Majority Whip opposed the bill.[26] On March 11, 2011, the House voted to send the bill back to committee and will not reconsider it before January 2012. Proponents plan to bring it up again in 2012 and opponents have expressed the desire to put the issue up for a referendum if it passes.[26]
On February 24, 2010, Maryland's Attorney General, Doug Gansler, issued an opinion that Maryland law could recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states which permit same-sex marriage. [28][29] According to Attorney General Gansler, the opinion is binding on state agencies effective immediately.[30]
On June 23, 2011, a Washington County judge recognized the marriage of a same-sex couple legally married in Washington, D. C., allowing one spouse to invoke spousal privilege and refuse to testify against the other spouse in a criminal case.[31]
A UCLA study estimated that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would result in a net gain of approximately $3.2 million each year to the state budget.[32] The study drew on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Maryland statistical reports. The gain is attributable to savings in expenditures on means-tested public-benefit programs and an increase in sales and lodging tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism.
According to a January 2011 poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies 51 percent of Maryland voters support a law allowing same-sex marriage and 44 percent oppose it. Five percent did not respond. The margin of error was 3.5 percentage points.[33]
A February 2011 poll commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage and carried out by Gary Lawrence, an LDS opponent of same-sex marriage,[34][35] found that 54 percent of Maryland voters believe "marriage should only be between a man and a woman" and 37 percent of those polled disagreed.[36] Eric Hartley of The Capital described this poll as a push poll intended to influence responders to give answers desired by the National Organization for Marriage.[37] It is worth noting that the stated methodology mentions no normalizing tests, and respondents were found by auto-dialing random digits until they reached a sufficient number of registered voters, rather than taking a statistical cross-section of Maryland's electorate.
Grove Insight found on that 49% of Marylanders supported civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples, 41% were against, and 10% were undecided.[38] Also according to the polling results, 35% of Marylanders would vote to repeal same-sex marriage in a statewide referendum, while 52% would support retaining marriage for gay and lesbian couples. The remainder were undecided. The results were published on February 21, 2011.[38]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||