im as one “approximating the significance or effect of marriage,” thereby representing a direct conflict with the amendment's prohibition against such recognition, thus rendering it unenforceable.11
In January 2006, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Brooke Murdock ruled that denying same-gender couples the protections afforded heterosexual married couples is a violation of the Equal Rights Amendment of the Maryland Constitution, which protects against discrimination based on sex. The suit before Judge Murdock was filed against court clerks in several Maryland jurisdictions for the refusal to issue civil marriage licenses to same-gender couples. The ruling stated in part, “When tradition is the guise under which prejudice or animosity hides, it is not a legitimate state interest.” Judge Murdock further noted, “The Court is not unaware of the dramatic impact of its ruling, but it must not shy away from deciding significant legal issues when fairly presented to it for judicial determination. As others assessing the constitutionality of preventing same-sex marriage note, justifying the continued application of a classification through its past application is ‘circular reasoning, not analysis,’ and that it is not persuasive.”12 The case will likely be appealed to the Court of Special Appeals (the state's intermediate appellate court) or the Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest court).
The Maryland ruling resulted in a call from Governor Robert Ehrlich, Jr for state lawmakers to pass a proposed marriage-ban amendment. A bill seeking to send a state constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage to the voters was stopped in the legislature a short time thereafter, with vows from the sponsor to revive the measure before the session adjournment.
The state supreme courts of Alaska13 and Montana14 have ruled that the domestic partners of gay and lesbian civil employees must be granted the same benefits as the spouses of married heterosexual employees. The decision in Alaska has prompted a move by Governor Murkowski to seek a constitutional amendment aimed at repealing the decision.
Other legal challenges to laws and policies prohibiting same-gender civil marriage are pending in courts in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
State Perspective: Adoption
Two terms are used, often interchangeably, although they have different meanings, to describe the legal procedures by which same-gender couples adopt children. Coparent adoption is a legal process that allows both parents to adopt a child at the same time. Second-parent adoption is a process whereby the partner of the biological or primary adoptive parent is allowed to adopt at a later time.
Although gay and lesbian adults in many states have adopted children, county-level judges ultimately make final adoption decisions, and their opinions vary. Some judges have been open to second-parent public adoptions but not to agency-based adoptions.
Gay and lesbian parents have adopted children at least within certain counties of Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Coparent adoption is recognized by statute in California, Connecticut, and Vermont. Appellate courts have ruled that state adoption laws permit second-parent adoption in California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The California decision was affirmed by the state supreme court.
Florida law explicitly prohibits adoption by gay and lesbian individuals and, by extension, same-gender couples.
Mississippi prohibits same-gender couples from adoption and second-parent adoption.
Oklahoma law prohibits the state, its agencies, and courts from recognizing an adoption by more than 1 individual of the same gender from any other state or foreign jurisdiction.
Utah forbids foster parenting and adoption by any unmarried co