Maryland Judge Rejects Gay Marriage Ban

[Shwicaz]

BALTIMORE -- A Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old state law against gay marriage yesterday, declaring it violates the Maryland Constitution's guarantee of equal rights.


Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock immediately stayed her order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The attorney general office did so later in the day. Murdock ruled in favor of 19 gay men and women, rejecting a state argument that the traditional family is ideal for children.

''Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory" law, she wrote.



Along with the argument for preserving the traditional family unit, lawyers for the state of Maryland had said the issue was a question for the Legislature rather than the courts.

The judge said she was ''unable to find that preventing same-sex marriage rationally relates to Maryland's interest in promoting the best interests of children."

full article here:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/21/md_judge_rejects_gay_marriage_ban/


so, um, why does every argument about marriage come down to children??

[Ray G.]

full article here:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/21/md_judge_rejects_gay_marriage_ban/


so, um, why does every argument about marriage come down to children??

Because people are idiots.

I'm glad to hear this. The government has more important things they should be focusing on rather than trying to discriminate against gay couples.

[Brian Defferding]

so, um, why does every argument about marriage come down to children??

I'm still trying to figure out why people in most states still think government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a personal vow, very personal. It shouldn't be the government's business sticking their nose in it.

[Ray G.]

I'm still trying to figure out why people in most states still think government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Because once you've involved yourself in everything else, why not?

[Thommy Melanson]

so, um, why does every argument about marriage come down to children??

Children are the great go-to sacrifical lamb/shield of the Republicans.

They're the reason behind regulating media, same sex marriage, etc.

[Ray G.]

Children are the great go-to sacrifical lamb/shield of the Republicans.

They're the reason behind regulating media, same sex marriage, etc.

Um, the Democrats are beating the drum to regulate the media just as much as the Republicans. Both sides like to use the Mrs. Lovejoy card.

[greg donovan]

because children are great leverage.

[Shwicaz]

because children are great leverage.


this is true, I used a 9 year old girl to hoist up my car the last time I had to change my tire.

:twisted:

[greg donovan]

this is true, I used a 9 year old girl to hoist up my car the last time I had to change my tire.

:twisted:


i use my kids to lift the furniture so i can vacuum underneath. i use the youngest as the fulcrum and the oldest as the lever since she is taller.

[Bill Nolan]

I'm still trying to figure out why people in most states still think government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a personal vow, very personal. It shouldn't be the government's business sticking their nose in it.

It creates a legal tie between two people, affecting the way their estate is handled when one dies, as well as the legal claim to children created as a result of that tie.

But as to why two people of the same sex can't be afforded the same rights and protections, I have no idea... But marriage is definitely a legal institution.

- Bill

[NATE!]

I'm still trying to figure out why people in most states still think government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a personal vow, very personal. It shouldn't be the government's business sticking their nose in it.

Unless someone goes to a Justice of The Peace or City Hall to get married. Then it is a government affair. It's funny, but marriage seems to be the one thing where church and state coexist without anyone getting up in arms about it, and I'm wondering if the gay marriage thing might be a smokescreen to eliminate the aforementioned type marriages.

[Brian Defferding]

Unless someone goes to a Justice of The Peace or City Hall to get married. Then it is a government affair.

Some places it's more than just that - you have common law marriages where the state will deem a couple married if they live together for over a certain amount of time but never filed marriage papers.

[Brian Defferding]

It creates a legal tie between two people, affecting the way their estate is handled when one dies, as well as the legal claim to children created as a result of that tie.

But as to why two people of the same sex can't be afforded the same rights and protections, I have no idea... But marriage is definitely a legal institution.

- Bill

Isn't that what what a will is for, though?

[Bill Nolan]

Isn't that what what a will is for, though?

Very few people actually have wills, especially younger ones who die unexpectedly.

Legally requiring everybody to have a will sounds like a nightmare scenerio, too. You would have to also require that they be reviewed every year or so, since life situations change so rapidly and often.

The biggest issue with government involvement of marriage has always been and always will be "the children," no matter how much folks mock that sentiment. Marriage establishes legal requirements for the care of children/heirs. That's its point.

But, again, there's no reason two people of the same sex should be barred from such ties.

- Bill

[Seltzer Water]

tenancy in common is a legal institution to govern the passage of estates.

[Brian Defferding]

Very few people actually have wills, especially younger ones who die unexpectedly.

Legally requiring everybody to have a will sounds like a nightmare scenerio, too. You would have to also require that they be reviewed every year or so, since life situations change so rapidly and often.

The biggest issue with government involvement of marriage has always been and always will be "the children," no matter how much folks mock that sentiment. Marriage establishes legal requirements for the care of children/heirs. That's its point.

But, again, there's no reason two people of the same sex should be barred from such ties.

- Bill

Oh I'm not advocating requiring eveyone by law to make a will, that's something I think the person should be left to decide on their own.

And as for establishing legal requirements for children/heirs, I think that can be done without marriage being a legal institution. There's legal parental guardianship, full custody, etc. - stuff like that.

I'm no expert in how things would be done without marriage being a legal institution and I don't have all the answers, but I do advocate the moral issue of getting the government as far away as possible from a personal vow that is marriage. And I think it can be done if people work towards it and find ways to do it properly.

[greg donovan]

the gov't should be there to help enforce the contracts of marriage.

it should not be there to decide who should get married.

inheritance of estates cause so many problems. even if there is a will and the death is expected and planned for.

[Shwicaz]

inheritance of estates cause so many problems. even if there is a will and the death is expected and planned for.


yeah, look at poor Anna Nicole Smith.

:twisted:

[Pia Guerra]

Wills are okay for when a person dies (and then not iron clad as judged by all the contests against wills) but government involvement is great for divorce where people tend to get screwed the most. Both parties end up having equal protections under the law, who gets what property, who gets custody of children, visitations, who gets the dog.

By granting a spouse the next of kin designation in the event of death you avoid many of the cases still being fought today where the very bigoted family of the deceased walk right in and take the house, the kids and the dog claiming the spouse had no legal hold in the first place.

Add to that hospital visitation rights, rights to decide what kind of medical care a spouse should recieve, living wills etc. and damn straight I want government oversight. It's what keeps things like Sharia law and hassidic law from eroding women's rights. It keeps things civil.

[Bill Nolan]

the gov't should be there to help enforce the contracts of marriage.

it should not be there to decide who should get married.

That about sums up what I've been trying to say.

And Pia's post explains why in great detail.

- Bill

[Brian Defferding]

Wills are okay for when a person dies (and then not iron clad as judged by all the contests against wills) but government involvement is great for divorce where people tend to get screwed the most. Both parties end up having equal protections under the law, who gets what property, who gets custody of children, visitations, who gets the dog.

By granting a spouse the next of kin designation in the event of death you avoid many of the cases still being fought today where the very bigoted family of the deceased walk right in and take the house, the kids and the dog claiming the spouse had no legal hold in the first place.

Add to that hospital visitation rights, rights to decide what kind of medical care a spouse should recieve, living wills etc. and damn straight I want government oversight. It's what keeps things like Sharia law and hassidic law from eroding women's rights. It keeps things civil.

You may be right about the divorce thing regarding property, but regarding the rest (certain medical plans defer decisions to making to a husband or wife, visitation rights) - again, can't that be done without it being a legal issue? I don't see why government would be needed there.

[Pia Guerra]

Just look at the Terri Shaivo case for the answer to that one.

Her husband had final say as was his right since he was considered the closest next of kin. If Terri had been partners with another woman the outcome would have been very different as the partner would have had zero protections under the law.

(Suddenly picturing Matthew MacConaughy standing in a court room "Now picture him as a gay woman". Dum dum DUM!)

[Brian Defferding]

Just look at the Terri Shaivo case for the answer to that one.

Her husband had final say as was his right since he was considered the closest next of kin. If Terri had been partners with another woman the outcome would have been very different as the partner would have had zero protections under the law.

(Suddenly picturing Matthew MacConaughy standing in a court room "Now picture him as a gay woman". Dum dum DUM!)

A private medical plan could be set where all medical choices can be defaulted to a specific person if the patient is rendered incapable of making said decisions.

[WinstonWolf]

I do think the government has to be involved in marriage, at least to SOME extent (alhough OUT of our personal lives. And for gods sakes, at least legalize medical marijuana. Fuckers.). Remember there's also alimony payments, healthcare for your spouse, etc. Man, marriage is a really heavy thing. This reminds me of why I never want to get married. But as for gays not being married, they should. This is a FREE country. Here, they should just add on to the marriage clause : Between a MAN, A WOMAN, AND OR ANY OTHER TWO PEOPLE NOT RELATED. Whew.

[Pia Guerra]

A private medical plan could be set where all medical choices can be defaulted to a specific person if the patient is rendered incapable of making said decisions.

But going back to the case where the bigoted family moved in and took everything DESPITE the couple having papers drawn up by a lawyer. The family knew the couple had been together for many years, had purchased property together and were building a home together, they still were able to swoop in on a minor technicality and take everything. This is happening all the time because states will not recognise the relationship of these couples and their rights. You think a flimsy medical plan will keep these freaks from contesting the surviving spouse into bankruptcy?

[james michael]

this is true, I used a 9 year old girl to hoist up my car the last time I had to change my tire.

:twisted:
thats one tubby 9 year old :?

[Caley Tibbittz]

This is awesome. Yay, gay.:D

[methos1978]

But going back to the case where the bigoted family moved in and took everything DESPITE the couple having papers drawn up by a lawyer.

It can happen in the opposite as well. My grandfather's widow screwed my father out of his inheritence, her lawyer (who wrote the will) turned around and argued that since the accounts where in "survivurship" accounts, and they automatically transfer into her name, he had no money to will my father. It may be off topic, but it should be shown to go both ways.

[tim cant dance]

A private medical plan could be set where all medical choices can be defaulted to a specific person if the patient is rendered incapable of making said decisions.
That is true. But if straight couples don't have to do that, why should we make gay couples?

[Ben]

A private medical plan could be set where all medical choices can be defaulted to a specific person if the patient is rendered incapable of making said decisions.
Yes, all the benefits of marriage (with some exception) can be set up separately. It also will cost you thousands of dollars to do so. The legal side of marriage sets all of this up automatically for a lot less money. That's the real benefit of a legal marriage.

[Brian Defferding]

Yes, all the benefits of marriage (with some exception) can be set up separately. It also will cost you thousands of dollars to do so. The legal side of marriage sets all of this up automatically for a lot less money. That's the real benefit of a legal marriage.

That's tax dollars that is setting it up through a legal system, so actually I'm betting it probably costs around the same (they are just paid for in a different way).

[Brian Defferding]

But going back to the case where the bigoted family moved in and took everything DESPITE the couple having papers drawn up by a lawyer. The family knew the couple had been together for many years, had purchased property together and were building a home together, they still were able to swoop in on a minor technicality and take everything. This is happening all the time because states will not recognise the relationship of these couples and their rights. You think a flimsy medical plan will keep these freaks from contesting the surviving spouse into bankruptcy?

States recognize legal binding documents and papers all the time. How would this be so different? A good lawyer will make sure it's free of those minor technicalities.

[Brian Defferding]

That is true. But if straight couples don't have to do that, why should we make gay couples?

I'm saying straight and gay couples could do it that way in my scenario.

[AAlgar]

Headline in the ultra-conservative Washington Times the day this story broke: Maryland Judge Rejects Gay "Marriage" Ban. (Their quotes.)