Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld

[babylonsister]

Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld
Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules

By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01

Maryland's highest court yesterday upheld a 34-year-old state law banning same-sex marriage, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry.

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.

The 4 to 3 decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the lawsuit relied solely on state law. But the judges appeared to invite gay rights advocates to pursue their goals through the political system: "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

Chief Judge Robert M. Bell issued a sharp dissent, accusing the majority of failing to recognize gay people as a "suspect class," a group that warrants special protection from discrimination. Bell dismissed the majority view that gays are politically empowered and should not be viewed as such a class.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091802177.html?hpid=topnews

[Bassic]

1. Fucking bastards.

"We realize that you have been discriminated against, but it's ok because you're just gays."

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. So another state rules that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation

In their ruling, did they bother addressing the question of heterosexual married couples who can not or will not have children? If there is a legitimate state interest in reserving marriage for the purpose of procreation, would it be legitimate for the state to require that married couples have children in order to stay married?

Pardon me while I seethe at the hypocricy. :grr:

[Zenlitened]

3. "the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage"

...the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.

Uh, yer honors... exactly how?

How does denying marriage to G & L couples promote marriage and pregnancy among straight couples?

Do thousands and thousand of gay men and lesbian women suddenly, as a result of this ruling, decide "Oh, well, it's time to go hetero"??? Do they suddenly run out, find an opposite-sex partner, trade vows and start cranking out kids???

This whole argument linking same-sex marriage and "promoting" hetero marriage is BULL. SHIT.

It's every bit as absurd as the idea of "protecting the institution of marriage" by limiting who can get married.

Memo to the Maryland high court: Shut the fuck up. You're not fooling anyone. All you're saying is "Gay folk gives us the creeps, and we'll do anything we can to keep them out at the fringes of our society."

Well guess what, yer honors... it won't work. History is filled with examples of people like you, dissembling, distorting and rationalizing their prejudices. And almost inevitably, they're overtaken by a far greater tide: You know, that whole "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing? There's no holding that back, there really isn't.

:patriot:

[WhollyHeretic]

4. This is a true institutionalized denial of civil rights

Yet this thread is sinking like a stone and we have 50 threads about some asshole that some overreacting cops tasered. I don't agree with what those police did but it was not some vast conspiracy just a small group of cops using too much force on someone.

This is people getting denied basic civil rights on a large scale.

The reasons the court cites for upholding the ban are ridiculous. Nothing but pure unadulterated bigotry.

[gollygee]

5. Marriage is not about children

as any elderly couple or childfree couple can tell you.

And many gay/lesbian couples have children. Don't their children warrant protection?

:(