Maryland high court says "no" to gay marriage

Well, believe it or not, we've got another judicial victory for traditional marriage...and it's from Maryland, (which made it a coin flip).

BALTIMORE (AP) — Plaintiffs vowed to take the fight over gay marriage in Maryland to the Legislature after the state's highest court threw out a suit challenging a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the state's 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights guaranteed by the state constitution. The court also found that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.

A good decision, on a critical social issue.  But note the slim, one-vote margin..which joins a string of other such slim margin examples on critical cases in our judiciary...which underlines the importance of electing politicians that will appoint good judges...but I digress.

Also note that this is the latest in a string of victories all across the country for the common sense opinion that it's not up to the judiciary to invent/discover new rights (such as gay marriage) in our various constitutions.  Such lunacy belongs to the people.

In the course of rendering their decision, (and doing the right thing), they felt it necessary to deflect a little bit of heat and remind everyone of some basics civics, essentially saying, 'Hey guys, it's not our fault.  Talk to the legislature!".

"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority. ...

And here it comes 

...Legislators on both sides of the debate predicted action on the issue in the next session. The heavily Democratic legislature has passed several gay-rights laws in recent years but has not voted on legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions. ...

State Sen. Richard Madaleno, who is openly gay, said he plans to introduce a bill to allow same-sex marriage. He also expects a proposal to create civil unions.

"I think we'll have a lengthy discussion next session about what the options are for legal recognition for gay people," Madaleno said.

Don Dwyer, one of the General Assembly's most conservative members, said he would introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as "insurance." ...

Then there's this:

Many of the plaintiffs have children, and they argue that their families are being denied the stability and legal protection that comes from having married parents.  L isa Kebreau, 39, and partner Mikki Mozelle, 31, who live in Riverdale, have three children — ages 20 months, 2 and 17.

"We really wanted them to understand how normal and good their family is — that their family is just like any other family," Kebreau said.

Uh, no it's not "just like any other family".  Also, this is why gay adoption shouldn't be allowed in the first place, because without it they wouldn't have the children to make such a claim to begin with.  And speaking of children, note this nugget from the decision:

The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit."

Which is what this issue comes down to, or should come down to.  The children.  Or, more precisely, the next generation of citizens.  For all the talk about rights, it's time to recognize society's collective right (via the state) to promote its future "general welfare" via the next generation.