Maryland court rules against same-sex marriage ban

[LiberalGuy000]

By Brian Witte
The Associated Press

Originally published January 20, 2006, 11:48 AM EST

A Baltimore Circuit Court judge today struck down Maryland's 33-year-old law against same-sex marriage, ruling in favor of 19 gay men and women who contended the prohibition violated the state's equal rights amendments.

Anticipating that her decision eventually would be appealed to Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, Judge M. Brooke Murdock stayed action on her ruling pending that appeal.

"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote in her decision.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-marriage0120,1,2366119.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

[William769]

1. Great news!!!

[TaleWgnDg]

9. Here's some great resource materials including the Court's order and memo

.

Maryland (trial) court rejects same-sex marriage ban

James M. Yoch. Jr., JURIST NEWS, Friday, January 20, 2006, at 2:32 PM ET

(JURIST NEWS) Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock (official profile) on Friday, January 20, 2006, ruled (opinion, .pdf format, AdobeReader® required) against a 1973 state law that prohibits same-sex marriage (JURIST news archive), declaring that the statute subjects the plaintiff couples to a discriminatory classification based solely on their sexual orientation. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (official website) filed the case (JURIST report) last July on behalf of 19 gay men and women challenging the constitutionality of the law. Judge Murdock granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the case (ACLU materials), but stayed the decision pending any appeal because of its potential effects. The Maryland Attorney General (official website) has announced plans to appeal the decision and the state General Assembly (official website) recently began its 90-day session, and will likely take up the issue. The Washington Post has more.

. . . more at . . . http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/maryland-court-rejects-same-sex.php
.

.

This Maryland (trial) court ruling is a Summary Judgment (order and memo of law) granted in favor of the (plaintiffs) same-sex couples as well as a Summary Judgment denial of the (defendants) various State of Maryland officials' legal position. Costs were awarded to the same-sex couples. The court's order will not take effect pending appeals, if any. For those so inclined, read Judge Brooke's complete court order and her memo of law, all of which consist of 22 pdf-format pages. I highly recommend reading her order and memo (.pdf format, AdobeReader® required), and not accepting (mis)information from secondary or third-party sources, such as television, radio, newspaper, or internet talking-heads and spews.


In addition, the Washington Post reports that Maryland's Attorney General has filed preliminary paperwork for an appeal against this trial court's order and memo. As well as the Maryland state legislature may attempt to take up a state constitutional amendment (over-riding any Maryland court rulings):

(Trial) Judge Rejects (Maryland) Anti-Gay Marriage Law

by Matthew Mosk, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, January 20, 2006; 6:03 PM

A Baltimore (trial court) judge ruled this morning that Maryland's law banning same-sex marriage "cannot withstand constitutional challenge," throwing open the possibility of a ferocious legislative battle over a constitutional amendment on the issue.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock, acknowledging her ruling's impact, immediately stayed the decision, and the state attorney general's office has filed notice of its intent to appeal. But the decision comes just as the Maryland General Assembly has convened for its 90-day session, and promises to refocus the legislature's attention squarely on the issue.

"The evidence is now on the table. We must pass a constitutional amendment," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel). "This issue is not for the courts to decide."

. . . more at . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012000780.html?nav=rss_metro
.

.

[Imalittleteapot]

2. Way to go Maryland.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Great news - on top of making WalMart pay their own way in

health care the other day!

[Zenlitened]

4. Awesome!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[f-bush]

5. Great

Maryland's sounding better and better. First they stuck to Wal mart and now they've struck a blow for justice and equality!

[goclark]

6. Yea for Maryland !!!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. 33-year-old law?

I'm surprised that anyone 1972 would have thought to put this into law.

[Ian David]

8. How do the anti-gay groups even get standing to join these cases?

How can they show they would be harmed?

Way to go, Judge Murdock!

[deadparrot]

10. Md. Judge Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban

BALTIMORE - A Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old state law against gay marriage Friday, declaring it violates the Maryland Constitution's guarantee of equal rights.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock immediately stayed her order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The attorney's general office did so later in the day.

Murdock ruled in favor of 19 gay men and women, rejecting a state argument that the traditional family is ideal for children.

"Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory" law, she wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_maryland

[OKNancy]

11. Wow

"Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory" law, she wrote.


I love that quote.

[doublejeopardy]

12. Cool!

Slowly but surely the tides are turning. All civil rights movements take time.

[LiberalGuy000]

13. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2054593&mesg_id=2054593

[DarkTirade]

14. One down.

What, 48 to go?