Maryland Supreme Court: no marriage equality

244 pages?!

only a group of bloviators in black robes and their posse of law clerks could take 244 pages to say "no." that's 1/4 of my family law textbook.

someone should tell them that brevity is a virtue. 

---

by: emily2 @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:19:34 AM CDT

'worthy of respect' ? - bullshit

---

by: tiponeill @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 12:34:06 PM CDT

They punted

Yes, we all know that the tradition of marriage being heterosexual is old and established.  Big deal.  The question was: "Does perpetuating that tradition violate the idea of equal protection under the law?"

Personally, I don't think level of documentation is what determines whether or not a decision should be respected.  In this case, all the footnotes in the world can't disguise the fact that these judges are homophobic bigots playing politics with people's lives while pretending to represent justice.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:09:47 PM CDT

Wow

And we accuse the right wing of scorched-earth politics.

 In this case, all the footnotes in the world can't disguise the fact that these judges are homophobic bigots playing politics with people's lives while pretending to represent justice.

 That's just childish name-calling. 

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:51:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also

That's just childish name-calling.
That's also name-calling.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:56:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um, no dear.

I gave my opinion of the *actions*, not an opinion of the *speaker*.  I try not to stoop to that level.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:00:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's distracting

hair-splitting. It was a negative attack.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:03:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL

And the original comment *wasn't*?  LOL So, it's wrong to tell someone they shouldn't call people names, because the very act of doing so is a negative attack? So when a teacher says, "don't call people names," that's wrong because it's a negative attack on the name caller? Seriously?

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:10:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm all for avoiding

being negative toward people. The response from MLawyer below is a perfect example of disagreement without disparagement. Was the "childish" label necessary to your point?

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:14:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you read the opinion?

And seen how the majority justifies their decision?

The fact is that every one of them takes for granted the unquestioned right and government subsidized ability to legally care for the spouses and children they love.  Yet they deny there is any injustice when other citizens of this country are prevented from doing so on the flimsiest and most tendentious of pretexts.

Sorry to give you the vapors with my blunt language, but anyone who refuses to recognize the worth, value, and dignity of same-sex relationships--and to understand that they have no moral right whatsoever to prioritize their own relationships over ours--is a homophobic bigot.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:11:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"the vapors"

So was that a sexist slam or a homophobic slam? Do women get the vapors, or just queeny gays? Nice language, really.

SL, no one here will waste any time convincing you that judges unwilling to create SSM are not homophobic bigots. You obviously have your dogma that you can't separate from.

But know this: language and screeds like yours are why we get held back longer than we should, further than we need. Feel free to exercise your right to angry speech, but don't think for a moment that you're *helping* anyone, especially us.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:26:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh huh, right...

If only I'd known I had the power to deliver equal rights for all simply by making suitably obsequious comments on a blog....  D'oh!  Now, I've set us all back years!  :-(

I think you're really reaching with your crack about sexism and homophobia.  I have no idea if you're male/female, straight/gay, queeny or otherwise.  (Sorry, if you've revealed and I don't remember.  I can't keep track of every commenter.)  In any case I wasn't accusing any entire class of people of "vapors".  I was accusing you specifically.

My "dogma" is simply that same-sex relationships are worthy of equal respect in our society and that the ethical traditions of our civilization lead to that conclusion.  And yes, I think anyone who disagrees does so because of a fundamentally irrational, superstitious animus against gay people.  What's childish about that?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:05:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sigh. More hyperbole

No one said that being non-offensive (which you try to define as obsequious) would deliver equal rights. What I am saying is that an offensive, over-the-top manner and bearing can and does slow down the day they arrive. I guarantee it: thru conversation with friends, family, and opponents, I've heard and seen it time and time again. tones and attitudes like yours drive people away from our side.

Going strategic for a moment, they also play right into the hands of the true enemies (the leaders of the right-wing media and social groups ) by giving them fodder to help scare and anger their conservative followers.

And there's nothing childish about your belief that people who disagree with you are only driven by a superstitious animus. It's dogmatic, over-simplistic, and arrogant, but it *is* very, very adult; I agree there's nothing childish about it.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:54:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, good grief

The decision is shameful from an ethical standpoint and, yes, driven by the superstition of these judges as well as that of the wider society.  I disagree that holding our tongues about that fact somehow helps us.

End of conversation for me, 'cause I don't think we're getting anywhere with this.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 20:43:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Before calling these judges homophobes

point out what in their majority opinion is homophobic.

I don't like the opinion at all but I must object to the personal attack against these fine jurists.  In substance, they stated that marriage is a legislative question and nothing stops a same-sex marriage law from being passed and enforced.  The Court of Appeals has a history of deferring to Maryland's very liberal legislature and this case is one such case.  Instead of insulting these judges, please insult the actual homophobic Republican assholes who are engaging in shameless political gay-baiting and gay-bashing in my state.

---

by: Maryland Lawyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:02:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

nothing stops it except a govenor

" In substance, they stated that marriage is a legislative question and nothing stops a same-sex marriage law from being passed and enforced. "

Passed by the legislature two times and counting here in California...(torrentp...I know I know Prop 22)

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:06:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

:)

That dammed ballot prop sucks, doesn't it?  What makes it even more frustrating, if not out-and-out evil, is that the man who sponsored the damn thing has *two* gay family members. He was restricting the rights, harming the chance for happiness of his OWN SON.  Tragic, evil, sad, wrong.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:15:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pete Knight is dead, but his wife lives

and Gail Knight - the mother of a gay man - is gathering signatures on two different petitions to amend the California State Constitution against same sex couples.

Schwances actions on Leno's bill won't stop her one way or the other from doing that to her son and the rest of us.

 

 

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:29:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks ML

It's nice to see someone else object to that type of attack.

ML, I have been trying to explain what I think is the state of some of the issues in California wrt/ballot props and the legislature.  IANAL, and although I don't know if you are familiar with CA law, I would love a little sanity checking from someone who actually gets paid for this stuff.  :)  It's in the "Cowardice in California" thread. Any help is appreciated; I'd hate to lead ppl astray.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:08:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We Maryland attorneys stay out of California

it is too #(&@@&^#$ weird jurisprudentially and politically, generally contrary to our "England Jr." common law instincts.

---

by: Maryland Lawyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 16:43:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

:)

And the left coast strikes again. :)  Thanks anyway; I've really enjoyed reading your analysis thus far.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:00:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, please...

Judges are political appointees, regardless of how much they like to pretend they're holy moral arbiters--and regardless of how much the legal profession likes to maintain the myth.  Constitutional law is just politics on a slower time scale, with smarter people.  Judges start with the answers they want to get to and then have the clerks hunt up the citations and figure out how to get there.

For starters, it's homophobic to talk about "a fundamental right to same-sex marriage".  The "fundamental right to marriage" period is what's at issue, and if there is such a thing, it belongs to every human being regardless of sex or gender.  It would be just as absurd to talk about "a fundamental right to mixed-race marriage".  It's the exact same trick from the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick which changed the issue from "privacy" to "homosexual sodomy" so as to camouflage the fact that it completely ignored principle.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:42:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow

Judges start with the answers they want to get to and then have the clerks hunt up the citations and figure out how to get there.

 I've never know someone to have so little respect for one of the most important institutions in our culture.  You really believe all judges just rule by their personal whim?

So tell me SL: if the judges had ruled in our favor, would the above apply? They would have just started with the "right" answer and figured out how to get there?

Do you believe that the rule of law even exists? Or just that judges have been making it up for a few eons?

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:15:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Respect and reality

I respect the courts for what they are, but when you look at history it becomes pretty apparent that the idea of them being above or outside of politics is simply false.  (This is true of pro-gay courts as well, absolutely.)

Courts are what we have, of course.  I'm certainly in favor of having them--and certainly in favor of respecting the rule of law.  But "the law" isn't some kind of revealed truth, and I think it's ridiculous that we should avoid criticizing unjust decisions and just bow down to the people who make them.

Anyhow, legal philosophy is sort of getting off the point.

You got upset that I called the majority judges homophobic bigots.  I say they're homophobic bigots because they show themselves to be incapable of accepting the sameness (in essential and important aspects) of our loving relationships and their own.  Pathologically so, in my opinion.

I'm sure they love kittens and their children and are "very nice people", but they just bent over backwards, logic-wise, to make it clear that their superior relationships are deserving of constitutional protection and ours are, well, substandard sh*t that can be treated as such by the elected officials that supposedly serve us all.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 18:25:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see a lack of respect

" I've never know someone to have so little respect for one of the most important institutions in our culture.  You really believe all judges just rule by their persancesonal whim?"

Its not necessarily 'whim'.  By the time of actually putting the opinion together, a judge has seen the pleadings and briefs and heard the evidence and arguments - and, in most instances has formed a view as to how the decision should go.  That's when its handed to the clerk to hunt for citations, etc.

The key, though, is whether the judge will listen to the clerk if the hunting comes up with citations that don't tend to favor what he judge had wanted to do.

Of course, there are plenty of instances in which the judge(s) come to the table with a hard-n-fast view of an issue - and no smount of precedent or logic will change it.  If you think anti-gay marriage decisions are archetypal examples of this, think again; look at anti-transsexual decisions like Litleton v. Prange (Texas COA 4), In re Gardiner (Kansas SCt), and In re Nash & Barr (Ohio COA).  (In the Ohio decision, the judge was so pre-disposed against te transsexual that she cited a law that had not yet even been passed. That, though, can't be laid at the feet of the clerk; the judge's husband was the sponsor of the bill in question, so it was purely a family affair).

In short, it can be whim - or it can be something else.  But I see no lack of respect emanating from that statement.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:37:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A few preliminary thoughts from a Maryland lawyer

Maryland is a blue state, let there be no mistake.  But its Court of Appeals, equivalent to most states' Supreme Courts, is a relatively conservative institution, despite the blue politics of the state.  I had expected the three dissenters to go as they did, but expected them to have two of the more moderate judges (in MD, we don't call them "justices") join them.  Instead, it went 4-3 against the plaintiffs.  Interestingly, two of the judges in the majority are about to retire, as will one of the 3 who joined part of the dissent (Judge Raker).  So Maryland's governor will have some interesting appointments ahead of him.

To the case itself.

Judge Murdock of the Baltimore City Circuit Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on three grounds:

• substantive due process (the constitutional jurisprudence creating rights of privacy, access to contraception, etc.),
• 14th Amendment equal protection principles and
• Maryland's gender equality amendment (Article XLIV of Maryland's Declaration of Rights.) 

I had thought that the plain meaning of that Maryland-specific amendment would provide the basis for affirming the Circuit Court's view.  If a man may marry a willing and otherwise qualified woman, a woman may not be deprived of that same right to marry that same woman on the basis of her own gender.  To argue otherwise is to state that taking a wife and taking a husband are substantively equivalent - something that both the plaintiffs and defendant should concede is nonsense.  I had less confidence in the federal equal protection argument and especially in the substantive due process argument.  The Court of Appeals' majority disagreed.

The majority opinion did provide a useful history of organized political discrimination against gays and lesbians; indeed, the very fact of LGBT political success was evidence that the pervasive and debilitating political oppression against Black Americans justifying equal protection suspect-class status did not also characterize the plight of LGBT citizenry.  Since I am "white" and straight, I won't venture a guess as to which community suffered the fist of specifically political oppression worse and if so when; others can swing at that pitch.  The opinion also discussed how the Maryland ERA closely tracked in substance the federal ERA and was passed overwhelmingly by Maryland's General Assembly and ratified 2 to 1 by voters in 1972.

To quote the opinion, what I consider the "money quote" of the majority from pages 36-37:

Turning to the language of Family Law § 2-201, it becomes clear that, in light of the aforementioned purpose of the ERA, the marriage statute does not discriminate on the basis  of sex in violation of Article 46. The limitations on marriage effected by Family Law § 2-201 do not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class. Nor does the statute, facially or in its application, place men and women on an uneven playing field. Rather, the statute prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct. A legislative enactment should be construed according to the ordinary and natural import of the language used ithout resorting to subtle or forced interpretations for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation.” Massage Parlors, Inc. v. Mayor & City Cou ncil of Balt., 284 Md. 490, 494, 98 A.2d 52, 55 (1979) (quoting Burch v. State, 278 Md. 426, 429, 365 A.2d 577 (1976)). To accept Appellees’ contention that Family Law § 2-201 discriminates on the basis of sex would be to extend the reach of the ERA beyond the scope intended by the Maryland General Assembly and the State’s voters who enac ted and ra tified, res pectively, the amendment. In other words, it “stretch[es] the concept of gende r discriminatio n to assert that [the marriage statute] applies to treatment of same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.” Dean v. Dist. of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 , 363 n.2 (D.C. 199 5) (Steadman, J., concurring.)

I guess I just find it sad that Maryland would look to D.C. for its jurisprudence when historically it was the other way around - the D.C. Court of Appeals often looks to Maryland because all of D.C. was once Maryland and both jurisdictions are demographically and politically more similar to each other than either is to (horrors) Virginia. I digress.

I guess I just disagree: women get damaged here for being women, as do men.  A wife is not a substitute for a husband or vice versa: ask a same-sex marriage opponent or proponent and you will get the same answer.  One need not even get to "separate but equal" analyses: it ain't equal, as required by Maryland's own Constitution, to hell with what's "separate."

I was the attorney who referred to the opinion as "worthy of respect."  I respect it because it is lengthy, exhaustively thorough in the presentation of Maryland law and the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian people in this regard.  Now is the time to give Equality Maryland as much support as possible: they have work to do, their leadership could use some help.  I have been a critic of Equality Maryland's endorsements in the past but the General Assembly runs for reelection in 2010. What does this mean?  It means that our Senators and Delegates have some time to get a civil unions or - better - a same-sex marriage statute enacted, before taking heat in purple districts.  We have a Democratic majority in both houses, strong ones, veto-proof ones if all Democrats are united, though I am not fearful of Martin O'Malley vetoing any bill that actually makes it out of the General Assembly. 

There are some very, very good people in Maryland's Senate; we have a number of openly gay and lesbian delegates and one Senator - Senator Madaleno, whom no Republican or Democrat dared run against meaningfully, who is known as a guru on budgetary matters.  Delegates Mizeur, McIntosh, Kaiser are openly lesbian and won convincingly.  Senator Jamie Raskin is a liberal-left giant, who was LOUD on his website in favor of marriage equality in his sapphire-blue district.  Screw despair: it's time for a pot of strong coffee, something I suspect Pam here knows a thing or two about.

Peace to all.  People who want to contact a LGBT-friendly Maryland lawyer on this, feel free to email me at godfreyprofessional *** gmail *** com.

---

by: Maryland Lawyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:18:59 PM CDT

thanks for the local take

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:57:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bruce Godfrey's post

Bruce is correct -- our court is rather conservative, though it may not be after Governor O'Malley gets to appoint three new judges over the next nine months.

However, what needs to become known is that our legislature is also very conservative. No, this is not Mississippi, and we have a democratic supermajority, but those are not all liberal or progressive Democrats, even in sky blue Montgomery County.

And a reliable vote is only the endgame; what it will take now is leadership, and our gay legislators can only do so much. What they do, they do every day, by being themselves and setting a superb example of being regular people. We need our straight allies to take the lead because it is they who can more easily reach their straight colleagues. We have a few who are great, make no mistake -- Raskin, Jones, Ramirez, among others -- but we will need citizens to contact all the others who have not shown a history of leadership on this issue.

 

Thanks, Bruce, for the great analysis!

Dr. Dana

---

by: danabeyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:35:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Dr. Dana

For some reason, I am an optimist.

The homophobia of the political opponents of same-sex marriage will become more apparent and they will lose allies.  Once the issue is no longer jurisprudential but policy, they cannot hide behind their "librul court not fair to us Christians" rhetoric.

A lot of Republicans in Don Dwyer's District 31 are just sick of him, want him ruined politically; had lunch with one GOP pol from that district last week who wants Dwyer to die in a fire.  I think it's a great idea to make his face the face of anti-LGBT bigotry in a forceful way. Other MD anti-gay Delegates and Senators are a lot less nasty (e.g. Alex Mooney, Nancy Jacobs); I suspect they feel politically "pulled" and are not "pushing" like Dwyer does.

A valid distinction exists between a jurisprudentially cautious court and a homophobic bigot like Dwyer, who only won by 25 votes last time.  Word is he's going to run for governor, which I think is great: would be happy to support Dwyer for the nomination so the entire GOP ticket can burn in flames in 2010, replete with GOP operatives losing the will to live.  Especially if Hillary wins and takes O'Malley into her cabinet; then he will fear anti-gay backlash less for signing the bill into law.

A lot of moderate or even conservative Republicans may support (quietly) same-sex marriage or at least the half-measure of civil unions just to get the issue off of the table.  The issue helps them with their base but gets them nowhere with Main Street Republicans.  Hope that Equality Maryland is ready to play hard ball.

---

by: Maryland Lawyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:23:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maryland Legislature

Equality Maryland is already working to move ahead forcefully. It won't be easy, and the main roadblock is not a cartoon such as Dwyer, but the Senate President, Mike Miller, who basically said today, "over my dead body." Maybe if he pays a visit to Dwyer, but until then we have a real problem on our hands because the Senate will not stand up to him on much of anything. He's the main reason Maryland may be "Democratic" but is far from liberal.

Dr. Dana

---

by: danabeyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 22:06:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They didn't read <i>Loving</i> carefully

You quoted the majority where they claim the statute does discriminate on the basis of sex. There the majority said:

Nor does the statute, facially or in its application, place men and women on an uneven playing field. Rather, the statute prohibits equally both men and women from the same conduct.

 

 This was the exact same argument of Virginia in Loving v Virginia and Florida in  McLaughlin v Florida, that blacks and whites were equally burdened by the law and therefore there was not discrimination. Unfortunately for Maryland, the Court rejected both Florida and Virginia. "Judicial inquiry under the Equal Protection Clause...does not end with a showing of equal application among the members of the class defined by the legislation. The courts must reach and determine the question whether the classifications drawn in a statute are reasonable in light of its purpose."

---

by: craigkg @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 20:55:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well stated

Loving can arguably be distinguished from Deane in that there is no doubt that the specific intent of the Virginia statute was the oppression of black Americans and the maintenance of a racial caste system, whereas the specific intent of the Maryland marriage statute and, for that matter, of the MD Equal Rights Amendment with respect to same-sex marriage or gay and lesbian people generally are perhaps more vague.  With Loving, the Virginia statute represented a specific change from a default status; in Deane, the marriage statute was probably passed without people even thinking of same-sex marriage specifically, one way or another.  In other words, they were not looking to eradicate a perceived "threat" of same-sex marriage to an established caste order; it simply did not enter their minds in Annapolis, most likely.

I don't find this distinction ultimately convincing, however.  I won't claim to have read the 244-page corpus sufficiently well to claim to know whether the Court relied on this reasoning or to what extent. Perhaps your brain is less fried than mine at this hour.

---

by: Maryland Lawyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 21:22:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're getting CLOSER--we're down to a one-vote margin

These marriage decisions that we're losing in the state high courts (WA, NY, MD) are one vote margins (then again massachusetts' was a 4-3 in our favor). It's very likely that what happens in CA next year will be 1-vote either way.

The Maryland decision is 240+ pages ong because it is wel-documented and pretty well-written. It is also devastating legally. They rule against us on every single legal question before them, even where they don;t have to (the suspect classification thread is NOT a good sign for future LGBT-related litigation in Maryland)

 More analysis at my crib...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:23:35 PM CDT

Thanks for the analysis

This is why that dammed ballot prop in CA is such a problem for us, along with the constitutional amendments in other states.

We need to get the legislatures to do this for us without needing the courts.  It's harder for the right wing to attack the acts of a legislature, and the backlash against those court cases that have gone our way have led to these ballot props which tie even a friendly legislature's hands.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 13:58:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leave it to the states!

Vote for Clinton next fall and expect her to stand silently at the sidelines while states place whack-a-mole with the citizenship of LGBT people.  I'm kidding.  Don't vote for her ever for anything.  

Judge Hanson in Iowa is right.  He isn't the first or only judge to consider the constitutional problems of disallowing one segment of society from having access to an institution that has been changed, altered, divorced and remarried numerous times throughout history - certainly in the last 100 years.  

If it appears that restrictions proposed for marriage are problematic to equality and the argument in favor of change is a reasonable one, then the status quo needs to be upended and it is up to us and our allies to upend it.

5 30pm LGBT Center San Francisco...again...... 

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:41:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trust me

I can't see myself voting for Clinton, no matter what happens. I won't vote for the GOP guy either, I can't imagine (we need a change in the WH), but I shudder at the thought of the Triangulator-in-Chief.

---

by: torrentprime @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:58:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks for your explanation

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 14:00:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can somebody explain this one?

"To be sure, there are important differences between the African American experience and that of gay men and lesbians in th is country, yet many of the arguments made in support of the antimiscegenation laws were identical to those made today in opposition to same-sex marriage and, as in Loving, their goal is to restrict the right of an individual to marry the person of his or her choice. Consequently, the reasoning of Loving requires rejection of the petitioners' argument. Hernandez, 855 N. E. 2d at 24-25, 26,  (Kaye, C.J., dissenting) (citing and quoting Brief of NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., as amicus curiae in support of plaintiffs)."

 

I don't understand the reasoning here. To me it seems like they're saying that the arguements used against gay marriage are similar to those used against interracial marriage. They also seem to be saying the the intent of anti gay marriage statutes and anti interracial marriage statutes is the same. 

But then they say beacuse of those facts they should reject the petitioner's arguement?

I don't understand. 

---

by: Ferin @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 21:45:22 PM CDT

Excerpt from one of the dissents i.e. pro-same sex couple opinions

The opinions are very long and not indexed.

---

by: Maryland Lawyer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 22:02:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The attorneys can dress it up in all the flowery prose they want

about how august the Maryland Supreme Court is, but it won't change the reality that supreme courts make major mistakes and do so because of political considerations.  I don't know whether political issues were involved here or not, nor do I know whether the judges could not get past there own prejudices, but I suspect they could not.

In any case, history will condemn their narrow mindedness.

---

by: oddjob @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 22:27:23 PM CDT

(THEIR own prejudices.......)

(Frustrated sigh............)

---

by: oddjob @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 22:28:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hrm

We should remember that we are the ones advancing the novel legal argument.  It is frustrating that we have BARELY lost in several states after just as barely winning in Mass. to be sure.  But this is a process and these cases are facilitating a conversation in this country that will ultimately result in the right thing happening everywhere.  Those who pin their hopes on individual cases, legislatures, or short-term results are going to swallow a lot of bitter pills.

---

by: tony @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 20:31:45 PM CDT