Same-sex marriage in Maryland

After much debate, a law permitting same-sex marriage was passed by the General Assembly (Maryland's bicameral legislature, composed of the Senate and the House of Delegates) in February 2012 and signed on March 1, 2012.

Roman Catholic authorities throughout the state were adamantly opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage, saying it deeply conflicted with the best interests of society,[2] and would threaten religious liberty.

[3] The debates produced disputes between individuals who had been traditionally aligned on causes and prompted sharp criticism from African-American religious leaders who said same-sex marriage would "disrupt the fabric of the culture".

In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals maintained Gansler's analysis and issued a unanimous decision in Port v. Cowan finding that a same-sex marriage performed out-of-state must be considered equal and valid under state law, despite its earlier decision in Conaway v. Deane in 2007, in which the court upheld the statutory ban on same-sex marriage as constitutional.

[16] The lead plaintiffs, from whom the case received its name, were Gita Deane, a learning specialist at Goucher College, and her partner Lisa Polyak, an environmental engineer for the U.S. Army Medical Department.

[18][19] In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage violated constitutional protections of due process, equality, and prohibitions against sex discrimination in Articles 24 and 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

[15][18] In January 2006, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs,[20] writing that "Family law §2-201 violates Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because it discriminates, based on gender against a suspect class, and is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interests.

[23] While the decision was favored by the plaintiffs, gay rights groups and their supporters, including more than 100 religious leaders and child welfare advocates across the state who filed amicus briefs,[23][24] other local religious leaders and evangelical ministers were upset by the decision and looked to state legislators to propose a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

[27][28] Consequently, Delegate Don Dwyer introduced a resolution to impeach Judge Murdock in 2006, alleging "misbehavior in office, [willful] neglect of duty, and incompetency" for her trial court decision.

[30][31] One lawmaker said "It is a clear attempt to intimidate judges and to make the judiciary subservient to the legislature", and Michael Conroy, former president of the Maryland State Bar Association, said that "No basis in fact or law exists to support any suggestion to impeach Murdock for her recent decision on same-sex marriage.

[36] Judge Battaglia said she would have remanded the case to circuit court for a full trial in order to settle what she deemed a central factual issue: whether the state could demonstrate that it had "broad societal interest" in retaining marriage in the traditional form.

[5] The dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Robert M. Bell faulted the majority for not recognizing gay people as a suspect class in need of protection from discrimination.

[37] President of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, called the decision a "setback" and Ken Choe, the ACLU attorney who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, expressed hope that, unlike the majority of the bench, the General Assembly would be able to see "that lesbian and gay couples form committed relationships and loving families just like heterosexual couples":[37][38] We're hopeful that, unlike the court, the legislature will see that lesbian and gay Marylanders shouldn't be barred from the hundreds of important protections that come with marriage simply because the person whom they love is a person of the same sex.State Senator Richard Madaleno requested in 2009 that Attorney General Doug Gansler answer the question of whether same-sex marriages could be recognized by the state.

[43] The opinion cited conflicts that arose from decisions in Anne Arundel and St. Mary's counties where two same-sex couples had their petitions for divorce granted, and another case in Baltimore where it was denied.

[48][49] Advocates held a rally in support of the bill on February 11, 2008, but it ultimately failed in committee,[50] alongside a constitutional ban introduced by Don Dwyer.

[52] Domestic partners must be at least 18 years old and be able to provide an affidavit attesting to their relationship along with two documents, such as joint checking accounts, mortgages or car leases, coverage on health insurance policies or the designation as a primary beneficiary in a will.

Governor Martin O'Malley stated that he would sign the bill, despite urges from Archbishop of Baltimore Edwin Frederick O'Brien requesting that he "resist pressure to do so".

[55] The House of Delegates proved to be a challenge, where same-sex marriage advocates struggled to gain support from social conservatives from Prince George's County, southern Maryland and the Baltimore suburbs, who cited religious concerns.

[57] Delegate Emmett C. Burns, Jr. said: "If you want to compare same-sex marriage to civil rights as I know it, show me the Ku Klux Klan that invaded your home.

[60] The new version of the bill contained provisions that more explicitly protects religious leaders, institutions, and their programs from legal action if they refuse to officiate or provide facilities for a same-sex marriage or couple as a matter of their doctrine.

[68][69] In June 2012, referendum supporters submitted 109,313 valid signatures to the State Secretary, John P. McDonough,[70] more than the 55,736 required for a ballot in Maryland.

[MD Fam L Code § 2-201 (2013)]A study from the University of California, Los Angeles estimated in 2007 that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would result in a net gain of approximately $3.2 million each year to the state budget.

The gain is attributable to savings in expenditures on means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in sales and lodging tax revenue from weddings and wedding-related tourism.