Maryland: Same-Sex Marriage

Nine gay couples filed a lawsuit Wednesday contending that Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and should be overturned, setting the stage for the Maryland courts to become another front in the nationwide debate. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) dismissed the suit as part of the ACLU's "far left agenda" and said he would support efforts in the General Assembly to clarify the current law outlawing same-sex marriage.

Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, was online Thursday, July 8, at Noon ET to discuss the lawsuits.

Programming Note: Maryland House of Delegates Assistant Minority Leader Christopher B. Shank also discussed the lawsuits.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: How fast of a resolution are you hoping for? Are the lawsuits intended to go head to head with the FMA?

Dan Furmansky : Thanks for the questions. I'm glad to be here today to E-speak with all of you. To answer the first question, we don't anticipate a speedy resolution this case.

In all likelihood, Deane and Polyak v. Conaway will ultimately be decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in Maryland. First, however, the case, filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, will proceed through the trial court, which could take up to a year. There is a possibility that the case will then be appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the intermediate appellate state court, before it is appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. While it is impossible to predict, it is likely that the litigation will take at least two years.

In the meantime, we must work to ensure that we can win in the court of public opinion.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Furmansky, since Maryland has a law that marriage is one man and one woman, on what legal basis is the lawsuit going forward? What is the alleged discrimination or legal injury being alleged by the plaintiffs?

Dan Furmansky : Good question. The couple are actually challenging the constitutionality of current Maryland law, which precludes the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The lawsuit charges that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the state constitution's guarantees of equality. The suit claims that the law violates the fundamental right to marry, the fundamental right to enter into an intimate relationship, the equal rights amendment of the Maryland constitution (gender-based discrimination), and the equal protection provision of constitution (sexual orientation discrimination).

The state provides hundreds of rights and protections to straight couples who marry but denies those rights and protections to lesbian and gay couples who, like straight couples, need to be able to protect their families during times of hardship such as illness and death. The goal of this lawsuit is to make marriage, as well as the rights, responsibilities, benefits and obligations that come with it under state law, available to same-sex couples just as it is to different-sex couples.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Hi Mr. Furmansky. Are you basing the claim on the State Constitution of Maryland or on the U.S. Constitution? And can you site the clause that is the basis of the claim? The Post's article mentions the recent passage of anti-discrimination legislation, and to me, that contradicts constitutional coverage. If discrimination was proscribed by the constitution no legislation would be required.

Dan Furmansky : Our claims are based on the Maryland constitution. The Maryland General Assembly passed the Anti-Discrimination Act of 2001, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations. It does prohibit discrimination in marriage.

We believe that Maryland's marriage laws violate the constitution's equal protection provisions by discriminating based on sexual orientation.

Let me just preface that I am not an attorney.

:-)

To read the complaint, you can visit:

ww.equalitymaryland.org/marriage_complaint.htm

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Furmansky, can you tell us some of the rights that are denied same-sex couples because they are unable to marry?

Dan Furmansky : Some of the more than one thousand rights, benefits and responsibilities that accompany a marriage license include:

The right to visit a spouse in the hospital
The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse
The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse
Access to family courts for dissolution of relationships
Death benefits for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers
Mutual responsibility for debts
Joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs
Ability to sponsor a spouse from another country for a green card
Community property ownership protections
Child custody, visitation, and duties of financial support to children
Eligibility for health benefits (without taxation) and COBRA benefits through an employer
Ability to take leave to care for a sick spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act
Right to inherit a spouse's pension
Entitlement to inherit social security and disability benefits upon the death of a spouse
Ability to inherit jointly owned property without incurring tax penalties
Right to file joint income taxes
Ability to put a spouse on the deed to a home without incurring tax penalties
Access to "family memberships"
Domestic violence protections
Immunity from testifying against a spouse
Right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Mr. Furmansky,

This issue is being fought in courts mainly because it isn't popular among the electorate and can't pass legislatures.

What makes homosexuals a demographic group analogous to women or African-Americans whose interests merit civil rights protections regardless of popularity?

Dan Furmansky : That's a superb and very important question. I agree that it will require additional time and education for individuals to properly understand the marriage issue and to divorce legal marriage from religious marriage in their minds. Of course, what gay couples seek here is legal marriage, and no religious institution would ever be forced to recognize that legal marriage if they so choose not to.

Marriage equality for same-sex couples is a civil rights issue because lesbian and gay couples are denied the same protections under the law that straight couples take for granted. It is unnecessary to compare one civil rights movement to another, in my opinion.

Every group of Americans that has been treated unfairly has faced unique challenges: no two kinds of discrimination are ever the same. That said, there are common threads that run throughout our civil rights history. Opponents of equality frequently try to enshrine discrimination in the law. In doing so, they typically insist that the group they want to fence out is less worthy because they believe that its members are morally inferior. This was the justification for laws that kept women out of the voting booth and out of the workplace, as well as the justification for racial segregation. History has taught us that it is important to fight discriminatory laws and attempts to amend state and federal constitutions that seek to make some Americans unequal for no reason other than who they are. Lesbians and gay men are no exception.

Certainly, when taking a legal look at Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down interracial marriage bans, one sees a number of parallels in the arguments used between those laws and so-called Defense of Marriage Acts.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Hi Dan,

How would you respond to Senator Alex Mooney's assertion that same-sex marriage will destroy families and cause big societal problems? (See quote below)

Mooney said same-sex marriage would lead to a breakdown of the family.

"The bottom line is every kid deserves a mother and a father," he said. "If you throw that away, society's got big problems."

Thanks!

Dan Furmansky : I would begin by calling Senator Alex Mooney out as the radical that he is. He opposes any protections for gay families. He opposes adding "sexual oriention" to the states ALREADY EXISTENT hate crimes law, even though crimes based on sexual orientation are so prevalent.

His rhetoric is full of scare tactics, which is very unfortunate.

To address his spurious comments, whether or not children "deserve" a mother and father is not the issue at hand. The issue is all families having the same protections as other families, whether there are two parents of the same gender or two parents of different genders, or one parents, or perhaps a guardian that is a grandparent! Children need these protections, and by denying a child the right to have a legalized relationship with both parents, or to have two parents with a legalized relationship to one another, it is the child who suffers.

On June 15, the American Medical Association became the latest organization to call for equal parenting rights for same-sex couples.

They join:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/gpaD3FF15BTt/

American Academy of Family Physicians
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/gdaD3FF15BTv/

American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/bdaD3FF15BTb/

American Anthropological Association
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/g7aD3FF15BT5/

American Bar Association http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/t7aD3FF15BT4/

American Medical Asssociation
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/b1aD3FF15BTg/

American Psychiatric Association
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/b7aD3FF15BT6/

American Psychoanalytic Association
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/bpaD3FF15BTO/

American Psychological Association
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/61aD3FF15BTW/

Child Welfare League of America
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/6daD3FF15BTI/

National Association of Social Workers
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/g1aD3FF15BTf/

North American Council on Adoptable Children
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/tpaD3FF15BTr/

So, if these organizations all feel that children raised by gay parents fare just fine and that these families can flourish, I think the general populace should trust the experts, rather than rhetorical senators like Alex Mooney.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why is it that gay couples would want to marry?

Dan Furmansky : My best answer is this: why is it that straight couples would want to marry?

Gay couples want to marry for the same reasons - for love, for commitment, for their children, and to have the peace of mind of knowing that your family has all of the protections and rights that are necessary to take care of itself, especially in times of health crisis, financial woes, or death.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What are the implications of these suits being filed a week before a potential Senate vote on the FMA?

Dan Furmansky : The Federal Marriage Amendment is an attempt by the conservative wing of the Republican Party to make gay families a political football. Can we even fathom the logic of trying to remove the constitutional guarantees from a group of citizens? The Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the bill of rights. This call to amend it to write in discrimination is just perverse.

Fortunately, we see no negative implications with the vote. All indications from opponents and proponents of the FMA is that it will not come anywhere near passage. In Maryland, both of our fair-minded senators oppose this amendment.

If anything, the stories of harm from the couples in the lawsuit will serve to highlight why it's wrong to deny some families the protections of legal marriage.

_______________________

Landover, Md.: Just wondering why there is a need to use the term marriage instead of civil unions, that would allow couples access to their partner in terms of health decisions, health care, children, property etc. It would seem to me given the cultural,religious and societal associations, if the same rights are established within civil unions then what's the problem?

Dan Furmansky : Marriage is not a term; it is a license. Furthermore, the right to access this license has been determined by high courts to exists for criminals, people behind on their child-support payments, and interracial couples. It is considered a fundamental right by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Civil unions are not a constitutional guarantee. They are a separate institution that exists only in the state of Vermont. They grant none of the more than 1,000 rights and protections under Federal law that families headed by same-sex couples so need. Furthemore, there is no portability -- a couple with a Vermont civil union are legal strangers to one another once they cross the state line. If they end up in a New Hampshire hospital, they could be denied the right to visit one another, since they are then virtual strangers under the law.

If the state grants a license already - a marriage license - to help family protect itself and navigate through life's journey, then why should the state fabricate another license for families headed by same sex couples? What is the difference between these families? What is the rational reason for setting them apart?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I read the complaint, and I see that there are two equal protection claims. I'm not sure I understand the difference between them. Can you explain that?

Dan Furmansky : One is a claim under our equal rights amendment. This states that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples is gender based discrimination.

The Equal Protection claim is arguing that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

_______________________

Takoma Park, Md.: Thanks for talking about this today. What are the goals for these couples who are suing for marriage? I know that the obvious answer is for same sex couples to marry, but in the short term -- what do you think will realistically be accomplished?

Dan Furmansky : In the short term, we can elevate this dialogue in Maryland, educate Marylanders about why families are harmed because they cannot marry, showcase couples who so desperately want to marry, show the love that exists between these families, and work towards immediate protections for our families in the Maryland General Assembly.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Dan, would you consider a compromise such as civil unions, in lieu of full marriage for same sex couples? Civil unions have worked well in Vermont, according to some people I know in that state. Thank you.

Dan Furmansky : Any protections for same-sex couples are important, and welcome. It may be years before we achieve full equality through the issuance of marriage licenses in Maryland. However, it's important to note that the only state with a civil unions law in place is Vermont, after the state supreme court laid out a blueprint for it to do so. In Massachusetts, the Legislature also passed a civil unions law, but the state supreme court said there was no rational basis for denying marriage licenses. Again, why fabricate this separate and unequal system that only serves to stigmatize gay families by setting them apart?

In Maryland, we will work in the General Assembly to educate on marriage (perhaps with a marriage bill), but we will also work to pass legislation that will afford immediate protections for families, like the Medical Decision Making Act. Families need protections now.

_______________________

Takoma Park, Md.: What would happen now if a gay or lesbian couple married in Massachusetts then relocated to Maryland?

Dan Furmansky : According to the attorney general, that marriage would not be recognized because of Maryland Family Code.

Our hopes with this case was for Maryland to grapple with this issue within its own borders; to determine under the Maryland constitution whether same-sex couples have the right to marriage licenses.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Sometimes it's better, tactically, to wait until you have more public opinion on your side before going ahead with a legal strategy that could cause the public to turn against your cause.

Is now the best time to file a challenge like this? Why the choice to make this move now?

Dan Furmansky : It's not really possible to put a human rights movement like this on a timeline. There is a groundswell of support across the country for the right of gay couples to marry, and LGBT Americans are, quite frankly, sick of the pervasive discrimination and hostility directed towards our community, especially from elected officials. So many couples in Maryland have expressed a desire to marry - and to test Maryland's marriage laws. The timing was clearly right in Maryland. Furthermore, the Maryland General Assembly clearly is rejecting attempts to further discriminate against gay couples and their families.

Knowing that this case could take years to come to fruition, waiting one day longer would be irresponsible, when the stories of the couples in this lawsuit show why marriage is so necessary.

_______________________

Frostburg, Md.: Do you have plans to challenge the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? After all, gay couples in Massachusetts become single again when they cross the state line to a neighboring state. Isn't that the logical step to be taken in conjunction with this lawsuit?

Dan Furmansky : I believe the desire of most national gay rights organizations is to proceed very cautiously with regard to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. First, we must defeat attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution. We must secure a White House with an individual who supports all American families and believes all Americans deserve the same constitutional guarantees. To challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act prematurely could result in a negative ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that could set us back -- that is, if the Court decided to hear the case.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: In the case of inter-racial marriage, society as a whole took years upon years to deem it morally acceptable. How long do you think it will be before same-sex marriage loses it taboo status in American society?

Dan Furmansky : Interestingly, when one looks at polling from 1948 (when California, as the first state, struck down its interracial marriage ban) and in 1967 (when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all remaining state bans), polling was overwhelmingly AGAINST interracial marriage at both times. Our poll numbers now in favor of same-sex marriage are higher.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Furmansky, what impact would granting marriage licenses to gay couples have on heterosexual marriages?

Dan Furmansky : None. Zero. Zilch.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If the courts can redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex on the grounds that it is discriminatory to limit it to a man and a woman, can't people who favor polygamy or marriage between siblings bring suits on the same basis. I realize health issues might prevent the latter but I don't see how we could prohibit polygamous marriage.

Wouldn't it be better to try to do this through the legislative process or popular referendum?

Dan Furmansky : Again, not being an attorney, we do know that polygamy has been rejected as being dominionistic and harmful to woman, and a health hazard. Such rational bases do not exists when looking for reasons to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Furthermore, there are millions of same-sex couples in this country who seek the right to marry.

I know not one polygamous entity seeking entry into the institution of marriage.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I understand that gay couples wish to be recognized as such and enjoy the same rights and protections that are afforded straight couples, but I don't understand why it is necessary for gay couples to embrace a straight custom.

Most of the rights and protections that proponents of gay marriage seek can be achieved through the normal course of contract law.

Why don't we hear more about efforts to seek "civil unions" which are, in effect, contracted relationships?

Dan Furmansky : Your comment, "most of the rights and protections that proponents of gay marriage seek can be achieved through the normal course of contract law," is woefully (WOEFULLY!) inaccurate and misinformed.

Only a marriage license provides couples with the tools to properly care for families.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md: Will marriage licenses from Massachusetts be accepted in Maryland if the ban is overtuned? What would be the next steps?

Dan Furmansky : Yes.

_______________________

Brambleton, Va.: First of all I want to congratulate the plantiffs who brought this suit and wish them the best of luck. My two-part question is: Is Equality Maryland aware of any same-sex Maryland couples who got hitched in Massachusetts? If so, do you forsee them bringing a separate lawsuit which would seek recognition of their marriage(s) based on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution? Thanks.

Dan Furmansky : Yes, there are several wonderful and loving couples who were married in Massachusetts. All of those that Equality Maryland has spoken with understand our strategy for working towards marriage in Maryland, and all are supportive.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: No doubt Republicans will use this is as an issue to get their base to polls. I agree with what you are doing, but feel groups like yours need to lay low until after the election. Care to comment?

Dan Furmansky : I believe we need to proceed pragmatically in different jurisdictions. In Maryland, we know that our supportive senators will be re-elected based upon their popularity and their service to our state. We also know that George W. Bush, a proponent of discrimination, is woefully behind in the polls.

If anything, highlighting this discrimination can only serve to make our antagonists look like the bigots that they are. Marylanders are, on the whole, fair-minded.

_______________________

La Mesa, Calif.: Mr. Furmansky, why are gay activists such as yourself so focused on filing lawsuits and forcing gay marriage through the courts? Why not work on educating people on the issues involved and then work with the legislatures in various states to vote to approve of gay marriage? In California, for example, a gay marriage bill passed a legislative committee in the last session, and the prospects for eventual passage appear good. I guess my concern is that continual lawsuits in various states will only play into the hands of those who are attempting to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, who can truthfully say that there are pending lawsuits against at least 8 states and the federal government on this issue. And it seems to me in the long term, an affirmative vote for gay marriage in legislatures will be accepted by people more readily than court decrees by judges. Thanks for considering my question.

Dan Furmansky : The Courts play an important role in creating social change for civil rights issues. It is, by no means, our only strategy. We are definitely working on educating the public through town hall meetings across the state, and pushing this issue in the Maryland General Assembly.

_______________________

Re: Laurel: Racial discrimination was also fought in the courts.

Dan Furmansky : I'm signing off now. Thanks to all of you who submitted questions. For more information, please visit www.EqualityMaryland.org.

Dan Furmansky

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Reminder: Join Maryland Del. Christopher Shank (R) at 1 p.m. ET to continue the discussion.

_______________________