From the Community Times

Appeals court sticks with dogma

by Susan C. Ingram

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

In affirming Maryland marriage law as an agreement only between a man and a woman, the state Court of Appeals cast aside hundreds of years of precedent of human bonding within and across gender when practical convention allowed it.

The court's 4-3 ruling contained no evidence of scientific thought. Instead, it bolstered certain religious claims.

The majority's claim of marriage being basically a male-female institution is not entirely borne out by facts.

Prior to the Middle Ages, marriage was not a church or religious concern, but a civil and practical matter. With the rise of class society it ensured a more easy transfer of property and inheritance irrespective of a couple's pledge of commitment.

During the Middle Ages the church introduced the idea of marriage as being between a man and woman with God's blessing. Marriage ultimately came under church purview.

Although some churches now support gays, lesbians and transgender people, including their right to marriage and the legal rights it conveys, the majority of churches do not.

Indeed, aside from the incest taboo, anthropologists note that around the world marriage, family units and communities have been formed based on the needs of the individuals and groups rather than predestined definitions.

In response to President Bush's 2004 call for a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the American Anthropological Association responded:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution."

"Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies," the association said in a statement.

Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, a civil rights group for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender individuals, said opposition to same-sex marriage is "based in a history and tradition of a lack of understanding of homosexuality and gays and lesbians being in the closet for centuries."

"The notion that it's always been that way isn't true," he added. "We're dealing with a deep level of ignorance."

In its ruling, the court majority also said Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment did not apply to same-sex marriage. Equality Maryland, however, is pursuing same-sex marriage as an equal rights issue, and activists vow to continue their fight in the legislature.

"For those of us closest to the case, we did not believe we would lose," Furmansky said. "We felt good about our legal argument and breadth of support from the NAACP to the National Association of Social Workers -- the list is long and very compelling."

"At the least we thought [the court] would punt it to the legislature," Furmansky added.

A number of legislators, including Baltimore Delegate Maggie McIntosh (D-43rd) and Prince George's Delegate Victor R. Ramirez (D-47th) plan to submit legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the 2008 General Assembly.

In recent years, attempts were unsuccessful to amend the state constitution to allow only marriage between a man and a woman or to invalidate civil unions performed in other states.

Those measures were defeated by a majority of Maryland lawmakers, with many noting that state law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Furmansky hopes legislators who voted against the constitutional amendment will vote for a same-sex marriage law.

"This is going to be a moment of truth, and people are going to have to stand up and stand on the wrong side of history, or show their belief that everybody should be treated with dignity and respect under the full protection of the law," he said.