MD gays dealt blow; job now is to lobby lawmakers
In a 4-3 decision, Maryland's Court of Appeals today overturned Judge M. Brooke Murdock's 2006 ruling that the state's 1973 law banning same-sex marriage "cannot withstand constitutional challenge." The majority of the highest court found that there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex:
Enragingly, the majority opinion glossed over the very real discrimination that is at play via marriage inequality, refusing to acknowledge gay people as a "suspect class." It also used the tired, flawed argument that man/woman-only marriage fosters procreation and encourages the "traditional family structure." In fact, if we didn't know any better, we might think James Dobson wrote the opinion himself, as many "pro-family" talking points are accepted and parroted in the majority's ruling.
So once again, we find ourselves proud members of a minority, the likes of which is being kept down by the short-sighted outlooks of a majority. If we weren't 100% sure that gay couples everywhere will have the last laugh in the very near future, then we might be uncontrollably distraught by this ruling. Instead, we are just moderately pissed that Maryland's traditional gay family structures will just have to jump through a few more unnecessary hoops before they reach their inevitable brass ring.
Why should the next step be to lobby lawmakers? Why not work on convincing the electorate? If a majority of Maryland citizens are convinced of the justice of your cause, sympathetic legislators will be elected.
The assistant attorney general was correct when he said, "An invalidation of Maryland's law would have the unfortunate consequence of placing these issues outside the arena of public debate, outside the legislative and democratic process."
Why do gay-rights advocates show such contempt for their fellow citizens?
Posted by: David | Sep 18, 2007 10:51:46 PMcomments powered by Disqus