Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld

The Maryland Catholic Conference and some local religious leaders also applauded the decision. "Our argument is not against gays," said Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., pastor of Hope Christian Church in Lanham and leader of a conservative group of black pastors. "It is to protect marriage."

But Kevin-Douglas Olive, a Baltimore teacher who is gay, said he plans to meet with a group of Quaker elders and seek their advice: Should he move away from a state that doesn't legally recognize his union with Russell Groff, who died in 2004?

"I grew up in the South and thought if I moved north, things would be better," said Olive, 35. "I feel like I keep getting pushed. Or maybe I'm running."

Partners Patrick Wojahn and Dave Kolesar of College Park, who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they tried to prepare for the defeat but were still shocked and disappointed.

"I had gone through both scenarios for what they could decide over and over again," Wojahn, 32, said. "I was disappointed, but this isn't the first thing like this we've had to face."

Gay voters are a loyal constituency for the Democratic-controlled legislature, particularly in the Washington suburbs of Montgomery and Prince George's counties. But an effort to legalize same-sex marriage will be a tough sell in Annapolis, particularly in the Senate, where it would probably be filibustered by lawmakers from the state's more rural, conservative districts.

"It would be a tall order for the legislature to overturn existing law . . . but it's not out of the realm of possibility," said Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee. In the past, legislative battles over legalization of gay marriage and a constitutional amendment to ban it have ended in standoffs.

In a statement, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) said those "of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally." Spokesman Rich Abbruzzese said the governor backs a civil union law "as a reasonable compromise." But it is unclear how active he would become in the debate.

Frosh said the dynamic might be different on a bill seeking to legalize civil unions, but gay rights advocates said they are not pursuing that route for now.

Republicans said they would try to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ensure that legislation does not legalize same-sex marriage.

"It was a very scary proposition that some kind of far-reaching, activist interpretation of Maryland law that clearly was not intended could be foisted on the citizens of Maryland without the say of their elected representatives," said Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert), the House minority leader.

Maryland's gay residents can adopt children and are protected from discrimination. A new law this year requires insurance companies to provide health benefits to same-sex couples if their employers want to provide them.

But they lack many legal protections, including financial support when a relationship ends, recognition as families for government benefits, and entitlement to property acquired during a marriage. The General Assembly passed a domestic partnership bill in 2005 that would have allowed gay partners to register with the state, but then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) vetoed it.

Yesterday's ruling caps a legal journey that began in 2004, when the ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of nine same-sex couples and Olive. Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled for the plaintiffs in January 2006, affirming Maryland's 1973 law as discriminatory and unable to "withstand constitutional challenge." She relied on a 1967 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down bans on interracial marriages.

The appeals court majority acknowledged that gay couples can be suitable parents but gave weight to the state's argument that preserving the legal definition of marriage encourages childbearing in households made up of a father and mother. "Marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation," the majority wrote.

Some lawyers said yesterday that the plaintiffs probably would have fared better if they had filed the suit later. Two of the judges in the majority, who are viewed as among the most conservative on the court, have retired since the case began and are widely expected to be replaced by O'Malley with more liberal judges. Retired judges are often permitted to continue hearing cases until their replacements are named.

Staff writers Hamil R. Harris, Jenna Johnson, Ernesto Londo¿o, Eric Rich and John Wagner and researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.