In Maryland, battle over same-sex marriage begins

[Holmes]

Md. attorney general: State to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) said Wednesday that effective immediately, and until challenged in court, the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that Maryland agencies should begin affording out-of-state gay couples all the rights they have been awarded in other places.

"State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now," Gansler said at a news conference explaining the effect of a long-awaited opinion he released Wednesday morning.

...

"It's not that foreign of a concept, I mean, it's just people, it's just like any other heterosexual couples," Gansler said. "However a heterosexual couple is treated that was validly married in Maryland or elsewhere, [a same-sex couple] will be treated like that here in Maryland, unless and until a court or the legislature decides differently."

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) responded to Gansler's opinion with a statement saying: "We will be guided by the Attorney General's thorough analysis and legal advice on this matter. . . . I expect all state agencies to work with the Attorney General's office to ensure compliance with the law."

Many in Annapolis on Wednesday afternoon were still struggling with both the political and policy implications of Gansler's decision, and even advocates said that they expected lengthy court battles and discussions with O'Malley's administration would be needed to further refine what Maryland may offer same-sex couples from elsewhere.

Several legal scholars said the opinion appeared designed to spur court action, and Gansler acknowledged that he expects his opinion will be challenged quickly. He said it will likely be up to the state's highest court to issue a final verdict, but he said he believes his opinion now provides a road map that didn't exist for same-sex couples to win in court.

[Brittain33]

Is anyone familiar enough with the Maryland ruling that didn't legalize gay marriage to say if it allows for this?

[k-onmmunist]

I'm cheering the good guys.

[Bo]

I'm cheering the good guys.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I disagree with the Attorney General here.

He says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But when you look at the statute for Family Law, there is a clear difference between the two:

§2–201.:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In reference to the marriage to the niece (§2–202.):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law states that a marriage performed in Maryland that is prohibited in the section is void; however, if performed elsewhere, the statute does not address it, therefore, the Rhode Island marriage should legally be recognized; however, the statute gives no such qualifier in section 2-201.

He goes on to discuss Nevada v. Hall and says that the Full Faith & Credit Clause would not apply here.  And I would agree with that.
He goes and tries to debate the meaning of the word "valid", citing a law review article, but I really don't see much credibility to the argument he gives (then again, it's only a short footnote).

He again cites incestuous marriages, but as I said before, there is a difference between sections 2-201 and 2-202.

Finally, I agree with his analysis that the Governor can issue an executive order that pertains to the executive branch; however, I disagree that the executive order here is "consistent with any existing law relating to the particular subject."

I think this executive order would be overturned in a court case.

[Padfoot]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

[MK]

I'm cheering the good guys.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Marriage is an inherently religious institution

False.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

[Scam of God]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

False dichotomy. Marriage falls directly under the aegis of contract law; and, as always, the State has no business interfering in business, especially not to defend collectivistic bigotry.

[John Dibble]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

False dichotomy.

Uh, no, that's not a false dichotomy. A dichotomy is a distinction between two things that are contradictory - it's only a false dichotomy if they are not actually contradictory.

Inks is separating ceremonial marriage from contractual marriage. While you can do both at the same time, they are not inextricably linked. For example if you get a legal divorce, it might undo the marriage contract, but one's religion might not recognize that as valid and therefore the ceremonial marriage would still stand to the religious organization even though it wouldn't have any legal bearing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that would be the case if the government wasn't involved in the contract. They license the marriage, and there's a number of laws and whatnot that apply to people entering marriage contracts. Whether that should be the case or not is an entirely different matter.

[Scam of God]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

False dichotomy.

Uh, no, that's not a false dichotomy. A dichotomy is a distinction between two things that are contradictory - it's only a false dichotomy if they are not actually contradictory.

Inks is separating ceremonial marriage from contractual marriage. While you can do both at the same time, they are not inextricably linked. For example if you get a legal divorce, it might undo the marriage contract, but one's religion might not recognize that as valid and therefore the ceremonial marriage would still stand to the religious organization even though it wouldn't have any legal bearing.

I'm well aware of what Inks was getting at. I'm also aware that, as always, it is a false dichotomy - if marriage is "purely" a religious institution (as most of our resident homophobes argue), then there is, quite simply, no civil component to it. Therefore the only reasonable course of action is that the State immediately ceases its involvement in the affair and turns marriages over to the religious institutions from which they supposedly spring -- including institutions, like the Quakers, which are more than happy to perform gay marriages.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

[Scam of God]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

No - it cannot be without either element.  Either it is a civil/legal construct or it is a social construct (or both).  Even if 2 people go off and 'get married' on their own and nobody else knows about it or interacts with them, that is still part of the social construct of marriage.

[Scam of God]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

No - it cannot be without either element.  Either it is a civil/legal construct or it is a social construct (or both).  Even if 2 people go off and 'get married' on their own and nobody else knows about it or interacts with them, that is still part of the social construct of marriage.

Society is a 'spook', and the only 'social construct' is society itself, constructed out of the imaginations and fears and hopes and inferiorities of the people who inhabit it. Recognizing that, and recognizing how fluid 'society' is, any individual can assume for himself the authority to dictate what role he plays in it, or if he wishes to play any role in it at all. I tend to dislike Margaret Thatcher, but her comment about the ineffability of society is as applicable here as anywhere else.

Man is not determined by the collective, but instead determines his relationship to the collective.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

No - it cannot be without either element.  Either it is a civil/legal construct or it is a social construct (or both).  Even if 2 people go off and 'get married' on their own and nobody else knows about it or interacts with them, that is still part of the social construct of marriage.

Society is a 'spook', and the only 'social construct' is society itself, constructed out of the imaginations and fears and hopes and inferiorities of the people who inhabit it. Recognizing that, and recognizing how fluid 'society' is, any individual can assume for himself the authority to dictate what role he plays in it, or if he wishes to play any role in it at all. I tend to dislike Margaret Thatcher, but her comment about the ineffability of society is as applicable here as anywhere else.

Man is not determined by the collective, but instead determines his relationship to the collective.

So are you saying that there is no society?

[Scam of God]

The civil and social aspects of marriage are not mutually exclusive; however, you can have one without the other, or you can have both combined.

Or you can perform a marriage without either element. So long as marriage remains a contract, then a mere binding agreement between two parties, without the inclusion of any external authority, ought to be sufficient to conclude it, just as it is, in most cases, with any other form of contract.

No - it cannot be without either element.  Either it is a civil/legal construct or it is a social construct (or both).  Even if 2 people go off and 'get married' on their own and nobody else knows about it or interacts with them, that is still part of the social construct of marriage.

Society is a 'spook', and the only 'social construct' is society itself, constructed out of the imaginations and fears and hopes and inferiorities of the people who inhabit it. Recognizing that, and recognizing how fluid 'society' is, any individual can assume for himself the authority to dictate what role he plays in it, or if he wishes to play any role in it at all. I tend to dislike Margaret Thatcher, but her comment about the ineffability of society is as applicable here as anywhere else.

Man is not determined by the collective, but instead determines his relationship to the collective.

So are you saying that there is no society?

And I'm not the only one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thatcher was, of course, too much of a weakling to take this statement - so true on its face - to its utmost and logical conclusion. I myself do not suffer that debilitation. So, yes, that is precisely what I'm saying; or that, rather, what 'society' exists is entirely voluntary, and subject to remaining voluntary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well then clearly my statement cannot be a false dichotomy, if one of my options doesn't even exist.

[Scam of God]

Well then clearly my statement cannot be a false dichotomy, if one of my options doesn't even exist.

Your opinion exists. The "truth" upon which you ground it, however - social norms enforced via means of mechanized religion hooked into the State apparatus - is utterly false and belies the philosophical emptiness of modern "conservatism". It is entirely without grounding.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well then clearly my statement cannot be a false dichotomy, if one of my options doesn't even exist.

Your opinion exists. The "truth" upon which you ground it, however - social norms enforced via means of mechanized religion hooked into the State apparatus - is utterly false and belies the philosophical emptiness of modern "conservatism". It is entirely without grounding.

I'm not talking about social norms.  I'm simply saying that there is a social aspect of the word marriage - whether that's man/woman, man/man, woman/man, woman/multiple men, man/animal, whatever - that's some type of marriage in views of society, and that is protected by the first amendment.

[Holmes]

The issue of recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is likely to be dealt with through the courts, though not necessarily quickly, said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach.

"The far right will look to find the right case, probably in Harford County or somewhere on the Eastern Shore," Miller said Thursday. "They'll forum-shop and try to get a lower court decision to say what they want them to say, and then it'll be ultimately decided by the Court of Appeals."

Miller said that he does not expect the opinion to elevate same-sex marriage as a topic of debate for the current legislative session or to change re-election prospects.

...

Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. said Wednesday that he will seek to impeach Gansler for issuing an opinion that "usurps the law."

Each year, Dwyer (R-Dist. 31) of Glen Burnie introduces a bill calling for a statewide voter referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

[Padfoot]

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

False dichotomy.

Uh, no, that's not a false dichotomy. A dichotomy is a distinction between two things that are contradictory - it's only a false dichotomy if they are not actually contradictory.

Inks is separating ceremonial marriage from contractual marriage. While you can do both at the same time, they are not inextricably linked. For example if you get a legal divorce, it might undo the marriage contract, but one's religion might not recognize that as valid and therefore the ceremonial marriage would still stand to the religious organization even though it wouldn't have any legal bearing.

I'm well aware of what Inks was getting at. I'm also aware that, as always, it is a false dichotomy - if marriage is "purely" a religious institution (as most of our resident homophobes argue), then there is, quite simply, no civil component to it. Therefore the only reasonable course of action is that the State immediately ceases its involvement in the affair and turns marriages over to the religious institutions from which they supposedly spring -- including institutions, like the Quakers, which are more than happy to perform gay marriages.

^^^^^^^^^^^

The last response here is what I was trying to get at in my original post.  The so-called "sanctity of marriage" argument implies that marriage is a religious institution which, if it is, then the government has no right to deny people marriage licenses if their union is recognized by their religion.

[MK]

Marriage is an inherently religious institution

False.

Its not false , but i dont agree with saying it should be left to religious institutions either. 

Like really if that happened how in the hell here in the south would i get to marry my partner?

[Holmes]

You can marry him right now, in the South, if you find a good Episcopalian, Unitarian, Unity Church, Metropolitan Community Church, or Reformed Catholic church down there that will marry you two. And it would be recognized by you two, the church, you family, your friends, but not your government.