|
Yesterday, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to kill a effort to put a statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 68-30. The Republicans attempted to discharge the bill from committee, but it was blocked from consideration. The House also blocked the move last year. Folks at Fairness West Virginia say they are confident the Senate will do the same in the coming days, but the right-wingers are planning a rally at the statehouse tomorrow, so everyone's staying alert. This follows the Iowa legislature defeating discharge petitions on the same issue two weeks ago and the New Hampshire House voting down efforts last week to put an amendment on the ballot and to repeal the state's duly-passed law. Sometimes these legislative victories don't get enough attention, but they're important.
This morning in Maryland, the Attorney General, Doug Gansler (D) has posted his long-awaited opinion on whether same-sex marriages performed out of state should be recognized in Maryland. Maryland currently limits marriages performed in the state to opposite-sex couples. The Maryland Court of Appeals is hearing a case on this issue. In it, he said:
...the Court of Appeals, when it ultimately rules on this question in a particular case, will likely apply the principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration is valid in Maryland. The opinion reaches this conclusion in light of the evolving state policy, reflected in anti-discrimination laws, domestic partner laws and other legislation, that respects and supports committed intimate same-sex relationships...
The Court of Appeals would start from the general principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration remains valid in Maryland. There is an exception to that rule if the particular marriage is contrary to a strong State public policy. A statute that limits marriage in Maryland to opposite-sex couples could be said to embody a policy against same-sex marriage. However, there are many restrictions in the State's marriage statutes and and the Court of Appeals has not construed the public policy exception to encompass all those restrictions. For example, it has recognized common law marriages from other states, although there is no common law marriage in Maryland, and has recognized a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece, although a statute prohibits marriage between an uncle and a niece in Maryland. Indeed, the public policy exception is a very limited one that the Court has seldom invoked.
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.
He also wrote that the General Assembly, Court of Appeals, or state agencies (when acting within their jurisdiction) could take steps to recognize such marriages. In DC, the City Council and Mayor enacted legislation recognizing same-sex marriages from out-of-state, while in New York, Gov. Paterson instructed state agencies to do the same, although Gansler wrote that that situation is not analogous because Paterson was complying with a state court decision, while there is no such decision in Maryland. We'll have to wait and see what happens in Maryland.
The entire opinion is posted here. The Attorney General's opinion is not legally binding, but advisory. I'll post more legal interpretation if it comes.
|
STATE BLOGS
