Gay 'marriage' ban struck

The Washington Times ^ | January 21, 2006 | S. A. Miller

[MediaAnalyst]

BALTIMORE -- A Circuit Court judge yesterday ruled that Maryland's 33-year-old ban on same-sex "marriage" is unconstitutional.

- snip -

"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge," Judge Murdock said in her 22-page ruling. The law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees "equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex," the judge said.

[MediaAnalyst]

The interesting thing about this article is how Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment is being used to force gay marriage on the people of that state. Note the wording of the amendment.

For those of us old enough to remember when the Federal Equal Rights Amendment, one of the arguments that (thankfully) stopped it in its tracks was that it would be use to legalize gay marriages – the wording, if I remember correctly, is exactly the same in the Maryland amendment as the proposed Federal amendment. Back then, the MSM ridiculed us conservatives as paranoid for thinking it would be used for anything more than breaking the “glass ceiling”. As usual, we were right all along.

[VeniVidiVici]

"equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex," the judge said.

I don't believe it was.

[Cicero]

No, there is equality. A man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man.

[icwhatudo]

I Think this is very important point:

For those of us old enough to remember when the Federal Equal Rights Amendment, one of the arguments that (thankfully) stopped it in its tracks was that it would be use to legalize gay marriages – the wording, if I remember correctly, is exactly the same in the Maryland amendment as the proposed Federal amendment. Back then, the MSM ridiculed us conservatives as paranoid for thinking it would be used for anything more than breaking the “glass ceiling”. As usual, we were right all along.

Little tid bits of information like this won't make a headline, won't be read by many, but it is so true and one of the great "I told ya so's"

[VeniVidiVici]

Right. I don't believe equality of rights under the law was abridged or denied because of sex.

[blogblogginaway]

This could backfire on the dems big time. If MD is successful in getting this on a referendum it will bring out the republicans in droves. There is an open senate seat. Sarbanes (D) is retiring and at this moment, Lieutenant Gov. Steele (R) is leading in the polls for his Senate seat.

[upchuck]

Another article on this topic.

[RobbyS]

The strategy emerges. Get a friendly judge to issue an edict, then use the Democratic majority in the legislature to block a referendum by the people.

[Txsleuth]

Hopefully, your scenario will play out...and Steele will get to the Senate...

[George Stupidnopolis]

Correct! There already is equality. I find nothing in the Constitution that reads "life, liberty, and the pursuit of a consenting homo with a leather biker hat."

[Polybius]

"equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex,"

Every member of one sex has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex (within the acceptable limits of consanguinity).

If only males could have same-sex marriages or if only females could have same-sex marriages, then that would be a violation of equal rights on the basis of sex.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Would someone please explain to me how the 'gay marriage' movement would prevent a man and woman from getting married?

[MRadtke]

"The state's position is that marriage is not a fundamental right but a privilege and that the 1973 law does not discriminate based on sex because both men and women are prohibited from entering into same-sex "marriage." "

The second part of the Assistant AG's argument makes perfect sense, but I find the first part disturbing. I wonder how bad he really wants to win this case?

[MediaAnalyst]

"Right. I don't believe equality of rights under the law was abridged or denied because of sex."

Of course. But one of the interesting things that the MSM rarely points out is how the libs are now using the state courts, via the wording of the state constitutions, to implement their agenda. Besides this case, the example that comes to my mind is how, in Florida, the state constitution that guarantees all children an education, implies that vouchers are illegal. Go figure.

What we, as conservatives, really need to do is go back and look at those constitutions, and pretty much clean them out except for essential stuff, like how the government is organized. Having education written into state constitutions is simply stupid - and gives judges all kinds of power to step on legislators. It's not needed, states will educate kids anyway - and if one doesn't believe it, go to any large military base where families live. Those bases have schools (usually much better than the surrounding public schools, but that's for another thread), yet there is nothing in the US Constitution requiring that kids at federal facilities be given an education - but it gets done.

[TheCrusader]

"She (Judge Murdock) said in her 22-page ruling----'The law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees "equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex',"

The fruits of feminism strike again; it was the woman judge Margaret Marshall who forced homosexual 'marriage' on the citizens of Massachusetts, against their will I might add. Frankly, I think these women in power are on a huge ego trip and enjoy overturning anything traditional because of their belief that an oppresive "patriarchy" set the rules for society.

[digger48]

It doesn't stop them, it drastically diminishes the meaning of the term "marriage". Opens it up to some thing other than it has meant throughout known history.

[p23185]

For those of us old enough to remember when the Federal Equal Rights Amendment, one of the arguments that (thankfully) stopped it in its tracks was that it would be use to legalize gay marriages – the wording, if I remember correctly, is exactly the same in the Maryland amendment as the proposed Federal amendment.

Too bad those articles were written before internet postings.

[Lunatic Fringe]

How is gay marriage "forced" on the people?

Is traditional marriage "forced" on people who shack up? Honestly, I see no reason why WHO you marry is anybody's business.

[rlmorel]

The sad thing here folks, is that this is going to be an unending assault. They are just going to keep hammering away. We can fight back and win, but eventually, because these people have no other goal in life but to push their homosexual agenda, if we let our guard down, they will win.

[gsrinok]

The sad thing is that they have pushed this issue so much in the media that some people actually believe a majority of Americans favor homosexual marriage. What a load of crap!

By the way, here is a Baltimore, Maryland, poll on the subject that still needs some Freeping.

Hit the link and halfway down the page.