| Page 2 of 3 < > |
Judge Strikes Down Md. Ban on Gay Marriage
Lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Gita Deane, left, and Lisa Polyak of Baltimore, are savoring their victory but acknowledge that challenges lie ahead.
(By Michael Robinson Chavez -- The Washington Post)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Advocates for gay rights hailed the ruling as a significant landmark. "Truly, a historic moment," said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland.
Yesterday afternoon, Gita Deane, 42, and Lisa Polyak, 44, partners for a quarter-century who are raising two daughters and are lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, sat together in their comfortable living room in north Baltimore, finishing each other's sentences. Deane held a cup of tea in both hands and savored the stillness and the goodness of the moment.
But they know this is just a pause in the challenge they accepted when they became a couple so many years ago -- a connection that has been questioned by many authorities along the way: the doctor who ejected Polyak from the delivery room as Deane gave birth; the immigration official who separated Deane from Polyak and their daughters as the little girls looked on, confused and frightened.
"I feel relieved," Deane said quietly. "People listened. They realized our family needed the protections that other families have."
Others, though, criticized the court ruling as a step toward eroding marriage and family. "My concern is legalizing same-sex unions teaches a society that marriage is only about fulfilling sexual and emotional desires," said the Rev. Eric Redmond of Hillcrest Baptist Church in Temple Hills. "I think homosexuals can have equal civil rights . . . without altering the historic definition of marriage."
Lawmakers in Annapolis who have long advocated for gay rights said the ruling was just the first step. "Hold the corks in the bottles," Del. Maggie L. McIntosh (D-Baltimore) said. "We're still a long way from a final decision."
McIntosh said Democrats recognize that the ruling unleashes the politically combustible issue into a legislative environment fraught with partisan tension.
Even before the ruling yesterday, House Democrats took steps to try to prevent a constitutional ban from reaching a vote on the floor. House leaders made a technical change in procedural rules Thursday, over the objections of Republicans. Residual resentment from that move spilled into yesterday's floor session.
Minority Whip Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert) admonished his Democratic colleagues for what he said was an attempt to shield them from casting a tough vote in an election year. "We should not fear having a debate," he said.
Yesterday, House and Senate leaders met to discuss how to deal with the issue. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) have cast votes supporting the 1973 law against same-sex marriage.
But both also took the position that a constitutional amendment would be premature, because yesterday's ruling came from a single Circuit Court judge, not from the state's precedent-setting high court.
Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who chairs the Senate committee that would have to approve an amendment for it to advance, said he saw no reason to act before the Court of Appeals has ruled. "One Circuit Court judge's opinion is not cause for amending the constitution," Frosh said.
