09/18/2007
Maryland High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
In January 2006, Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock struck down a 1973 state law which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, saying the law was discriminatory and "[could not] withstand constitutional challenge." Murdock added: "When tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest." The case was brought by nine same-sex couples arguing that the Equal Rights Amendment in Maryland's constitution was discriminatory.
In December 2006, Maryland's highest court heard arguments in the appeal of that decision by the state.
The court issued their ruling today, and upheld Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage.
According to the AP, "Maryland's 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, the Court of Appeals ruled. It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage. The decision left open the possibility that the Legislature could still take action on the issue. '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."
You may have missed...
Maryland's Highest Court Hears Gay Marriage Case [tr]
Posted 12:10 PM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Maryland, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I am also ashamed of the court. How those four justices could not recognize gay couples right to marry eludes me. It is very clear that by denying it they are stating that gay relationships are not as valid as straight ones. Shame on them for their descrimination.
Posted by: Sean | Sep 18, 2007 6:55:18 PM
ZEKE:
When someone (YOU) has to resort to posting sarcastic, infantile remarks here under someone else's name (MINE), I'd say it's time to change the diapers (YOURS).
You are presumptuous and flat out wrong on some of what you believe, vis-a-vis Towleroad comments.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 18, 2007 7:03:40 PM
i have a rope with my name on it that i plan on using myself in front of the Maryland court as a means of protesting their ruling. i would have chosen self-immolation but Maryland has some very strict fire laws and i don't want to run the risk of getting tazered whilst in the midst of suicidal act.
Posted by: stephen | Sep 18, 2007 7:08:52 PM
ZEKE:
C'mon, give me a break. I just changed your diaper five minutes ago!!! Stopping crapping all over the computer.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 18, 2007 7:16:32 PM
damn. i don't see any good trees around here with strong branches near the court house. hmmm, i wonder if that's one of those break-away light posts? gosh, i hope i don't get recognized! that would certainly put a crimp in my plans! sniff, sniff, i wonder why my hands smell like baby poo? oh, that's right. i go through life with my thumb up my ass.
Posted by: stephen | Sep 18, 2007 7:30:23 PM
Andy, Can't you ban that imbecilic troll Stephen? Why provide a forum for such idiotic ramblings. He is now resorting to threats of physical harm against someone we all know to be one of the most understanding and respectful commenters on this site. Please ban him.
Posted by: rudy | Sep 18, 2007 8:41:12 PM
Andy,
I agree with Rudy. STEPHEN is clearly not a homosexual but is merely a right wing troll who comes to towleroad to post espouse hate and bigotry all the while denying that it is hate and bigotry. Please ban him!
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Sep 18, 2007 9:11:24 PM
rudy, petey, couldn't u just gag me with ur big meaty penises?
Posted by: stephen | Sep 18, 2007 9:41:30 PM
First time posting here.
Your 'arguements' have been reduced to making quasi-terrorist statements. I think Osama bin Laden is looking for new recruits, you should be a shoo-in.
I suggest you suck that thumb of yours.
Posted by: Elais | Sep 18, 2007 10:01:33 PM
One small correction to PeterParker's earlier comment. Thankfully, Robert Ehrlich is no longer governor of Maryland, and has been replaced by a Democrat (and a fairly good one at that)--Martin O'Malley, former Mayor of Baltimore.
Posted by: Aaron | Sep 18, 2007 10:13:09 PM
Rudy: Plessy establish the separate but equal doctrine, not Dred Scott, which concerned itself with citizenship in non-slave states. I'm simply correcting a point made, not attacking you. Have a nice day.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 18, 2007 10:31:12 PM
STEPHEN, I have NEVER posted under ANY name other than ZEKE. If you have any doubt that this is true please feel free to contact Andy at andy@towleroad.com and ask him to trace the IP address of the person who is posting under your name. Ask him if it is the IP address of the ONLY computer that I EVER post comments from.
I think you owe me an apology for making such an accusation! You have insulted me and my family many times but now you're flat out accusing me of doing something I've never done. You truly are an ass!
ANDY, Please check the IP address of the people posting under the name STEPHEN and tell the troll that none of them match mine.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 19, 2007 12:05:00 AM
As offended as I've been by STEPHEN's ad nauseam anti marriage equality rhetoric and his repeated personal attacks on my family I have never asked Andy to ban him because I truly believe in freedom of speech; even when I find that speech to be hurtful and offensive.
I've now reached the end of my rope with this latest false accusation that he has made against me. That, in addition to the fact that he intentionally misrepresented himself and his agenda here for many months (before I smoked him out) and the fact that he is clearly a Focus on the Family troll tells me that it is way past time for Andy to ban him. I now join the calls for banning him, NOT because of his point of view but because of his abusiveness, deception and now false accusations.
I suggest that others who have had it with STEPHEN's antics contact Andy directly at andy@towleroad.com to express your concerns.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 19, 2007 12:39:02 AM
Freedom of speech is a right.
Banning those who disagree with another's opinion, etc. makes this blogsite a one way street. I don't think Andy is about to infringe on the constitutional right.
As for postings under my name that are NOT my words and ideas,i.e., NOT authored by me, I'm not about to apologize to anyone until Andy provides me with a verifiable list of persons who have been resorting to the childish tactic.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 19, 2007 4:53:22 AM
Due to requests from numerous readers and a review of his commenting history, Stephen has lost his commenting privileges, at least from the IPs at which they originated. Towleroad is meant to be a civil forum. Those who do not wish to abide by that and inflame discussion run the risk of losing their privileges as well.
Posted by: andy | Sep 19, 2007 6:48:41 AM
Thanks Andy. You absolutely made the right decision. Those who abuse others and excuse their behaviour as exercising Free Speech are cowards. More speech is always the answer to unpopular opinion but threats need not be tolerated.
Posted by: rudy | Sep 19, 2007 8:15:38 AM
ANON, I respectfully suggest again that you read the cited opinions. Merely repeating what the justices said they were deciding would only get you a C- as a student in my legal advocacy classes. To aruge convincingly, you must think and be able to tie together seemingly isolated decisions. Analysis of legal opinions, as in life, is more than merely repeating what someone thought he said or did.
Posted by: rudy | Sep 19, 2007 8:26:40 AM
Thank you Andy!
Free speech is a terribly misunderstood concept that is too often cited when it doesn’t really apply. We have only to look a few comments back to see an example of this.
The constitution guarantees freedom of speech from GOVERNMENT intrusion. It does not guarantee trolls the right to go onto a person's personal blog to be abusive and disruptive. It certainly doesn't prohibit a person from enforcing rules in their personal space and it most certainly doesn't guarantee anyone the right to go onto someone's personal blog to misrepresent himself and his agenda, hi-jack discussions, falsely accuse other guests of unethical posting practices or to insult other guests and their families.
If the government had banned STEPHEN from this site or in ANY way limited him from expressing his opinion on marriage equality, I would be the first to cry FOUL! THAT would have been a violation of his right to free speech.
What you did was something totally different and I for one support it 100%.
I would suggest that the banned guest start and maintain his own blog where he can freely express himself in any way he chooses.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 19, 2007 11:07:54 AM
Lmao
Posted by: sean | Sep 19, 2007 8:01:26 PM