From The Gazette

ACLU Lawsuit Against State Reopens Gay Marriage Debate

by C. Benjamin Ford and Steven T. Dennis
Staff Writers

July 9, 2004

Gays are suing the state for the right to marry in Maryland, but opponents vow they will fight to keep them from saying, "I do."

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the case Wednesday in Baltimore City Circuit Court on behalf of nine couples and one man whose partner died in 2003.

The lawsuit challenges a 1973 state law that recognizes marriage as only between a man and a woman, arguing that it violates the state constitution's equal protection clause.

"What we're talking about is equality of the most basic sort and discrimination of the most basic sort, and we think that is prohibited by the state constitution," said David Rocah, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Maryland.

The 19 plaintiffs represent a mix of Maryland residents from Washington County to Southern Maryland, Baptists and Catholics, blue-collar and white-collar workers.

The ACLU of Maryland posted photos of the couples together along with short biographies in order to put a human face to the issue, Rocah said.

Homosexual couples want to marry for the same reason that heterosexual couples want to marry, and they have the same responsibilities and rights as heterosexual couples, Rocah said. The lawsuit points out that the state banned interracial marriages until 1967.

"We think the people of Maryland, just like the people of the United States, are basically good people, and we know they dislike discrimination," Rocah said.

Sen. Alexander X. Mooney (R-Dist. 3) of Frederick, a staunch opponent of gay rights, including marriage and adoption, denounced the lawsuit on Thursday.

"It's an extremist agenda that the homosexual movement has had which is to get homosexual marriage," Mooney said in an interview. "It's been on their agenda all along. It'd break down the family unit of society."

Asked to explain how allowing gay people to marry would damage families, Mooney said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the way God created it. That's the way it's always been reflected in our value system, and we don't want it destroyed."

Democrats and Republicans worked together on bills to establish marriage as between a man and a woman, but Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. (D) assured them that the state law already prohibited recognition of marriages other than between a man and a woman, Mooney said.

"Now the attorney general better come through with those assurances that caused those bills to be defeated," he said.

In a written statement, Curran said he would defend the state law.

"This office has advised repeatedly that, in our view, the Family Law Article unambiguously defines marriage in a way that excludes same sex couples," Curran said. "However, it seems appropriate that the issue, which has been framed as a matter of civil rights, be decided by the courts."

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) said that his position has long been clear that he opposes gay marriage.

"At some point over the years, the ACLU really lost their way. It's simply the ACLU and their far-left agenda. There is nothing more to say," he said.

Joshua Baker, a legal analyst for the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a think tank in Washington, D.C., said the Maryland suit is further proof that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is needed to block gay marriage.

"This suit shows that it's an issue Maryland can't avoid," he said.

Marriage between same-sex couples sends the wrong message of what makes an acceptable family relationship, Baker said.

Others disagreed.

Del. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington, one of three openly gay state lawmakers, backs the suit.

"I think the lawsuit is an important step towards gaining legal recognition for same-sex couples in Maryland," he said. "It's clear that the legislature won't act on its own."

A bill that would have granted medical decision making and hospital visitation rights to gay couples failed in the General Assembly this year.

Madaleno and other gay rights advocates had held off on broader proposals for civil unions or marriage rights, but he said they are considering introducing broader bills next year.

"In every other state where some progress has been made, it's been done in tandem with a lawsuit," Madaleno added. "There is a tradition in going to court to seek to have the rights of minorities protected or recognized when the legislative and executive branch fail to do so."

Madaleno said it is unclear if the lawsuit will spur the legislature to action or if lawmakers will use it as an excuse to wait so they can see how the courts decide.

"I firmly believe that it is a matter of treating all people fairly and giving everyone the same opportunity in respect to their personal life and their pursuit of happiness," he said.

But several people who sued said they need to marry so they can enjoy the same protections that marriage provides other couples. They said they want to marry for love, but the lack of marital rights blocks them from hospital visits, joint ownership of property and most family health insurance policies.

"If my partner was hospitalized tomorrow and just immediate family could see him, I could not see him," said Alvin Williams, 49, of Upper Marlboro.

Williams and his partner, Nigel Simon, 35, recently tried to obtain a marriage license in Prince George's, but they were refused.

"We're not asking for special rights. I just want my civil rights," Williams said.

Dave Kolesar, 26, who has lived with Patrick Wojahn, 28, for two years, said they want to make their relationship official in front of their families.

"It's only natural to say our families are still getting used to the idea," Kolesar said. "Coming out is an adjustment. Getting married is another adjustment for our families. But by and large, our families have been very supportive."

"Marriage is something important to us because it shows that our relationship has value and worth under the law," Wojahn said.

Staff Writer Angela Swinson Lee contributed to this report.