Same-sex marriage in Maryland

, the meeting place of the Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis Background Maryland holds a unique place in the history of same-sex marriage in the United States. In 1973, it became the first U.S. state in the nation to define marriage as "a union between a man and a woman", expressly banning same-sex marriage. The Maryland General Assembly passed the law a short time after voters in the state ratified Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, commonly referred to as the Equal Rights Amendment, in November 1972. The constitutional provision prohibited discrimination in equality of rights on the basis of sex. In 1975, a marriage license was issued to two women, Michele Bernadette Bush and Paulette Camille Hill, in Montgomery County. Although the county clerk had issued the license and Attorney General Francis B. Burch had published an opinion that county officials could not challenge the validity of the marriage, the license was later revoked. During the 1990s, attempts to both ban and legalize same-sex marriage did not pass through the General Assembly. After a committee in the Maryland House of Delegates voted in March 2004 to reject a pair of marriage bills that would have submitted a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage to voters and invalidated same-sex marriages performed in another state or foreign country, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Equality Maryland filed a lawsuit, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway, to challenge the existing law on behalf of nine same-sex couples and one bereaved man whose partner had died. 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. The plaintiffs had applied for marriage licenses in several different counties but were denied by county clerks. 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. 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." because "when tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest." The judge immediately stayed the decision pending an appeal by the Attorney General of Maryland, 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, 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. Such an amendment was favored by Governor Bob Ehrlich who said "my politics on this are very clear. We're going to protect marriage. Traditional marriage." In February 2006, the proposed ban was rejected after opponents successfully amended it to legalize civil unions. 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. In 2007, he introduced a law that would ban discussion of same-sex unions in public schools. 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." David Rocah, an attorney for the ACLU, called the resolution "a frivolous, dangerous and extremist response from the lunatic fringe." To the surprise of spectators, there were almost no questions from the judges during oral argument, which took place on December 4, 2006, Judge Harrell said that the ERA was intended to prohibit sex discrimination against women and did not apply to this case, which he said was a matter of sexual orientation. 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. 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": ==Recognition of out-of-state marriages==