| Page 2 of 2 < |
Democrats in Md. Try to Limit Fallout Of Gay Union Case
Members of Equality Maryland speak out against a ban on gay marriage.
(By Kevin Clark -- 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  |
Democrats appear to have support to block efforts to sanction Murdock and thwart Republican efforts to push through a constitutional amendment during this year's 90-day legislative session.
But two camps are forming within the party about what should happen next. Some, including Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., believe Democrats' position would be strengthened if the Court of Appeals sped up the process, grabbing the case from the mid-level appeals court and ruling before the General Assembly adjourns April 10.
Others, including Simmons, believe that if no firm decision occurred before the election, the court ruling would not affect Democratic candidates' fate this fall.
Simmons acknowledged that his proposal to put a court ruling on hold so the legislature can address it next year would be novel.
Assistant Attorney General Robert A. Zarnoch, the legislature's attorney, said that he is researching the idea but that there is something approximating a precedent -- a case in which the legislature passed a bill saying the court could not stay a judgment from the commission that reviews medical disciplinary cases. "This is the flip side," Zarnoch said.
Andrew H. Baida, an attorney for a plaintiff in the marriage case, said he saw no room for the legislature to bind the court that way.
"I'm unaware of the legislature having the power to instruct the Court of Appeals not to decide a constitutional issue," Baida said. "That's a prerogative that belongs to the court."
David Bogen, a University of Maryland law professor, was more emphatic. "They don't have that authority," he said.
Miller (D-Calvert) said yesterday that he is not a fan of Simmons's approach, which he called "gimmickry." Instead, he said, he is among those hoping that the Court of Appeals will act "as expeditiously as possible." If the high court were to reverse Murdock's opinion, it would instantly defuse the political situation, he said.
"The situation would only be politically perilous [for Democrats] if the Court of Appeals sustains the Circuit Court, and the people are not given an opportunity to have a referendum," Miller said .
