AG Frosh issues report on "The State of Marriage Equality in America"

AG Frosh issues report on "The State of Marriage Equality in America"
Same-Sex Marriage Bans Fueled by Prejudice and Hate and Warrant Judicial Intervention, Analysis Concludes

Baltimore, MD - With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear a landmark same-sex marriage case next month and legislatures across the country continuing to debate the issue, Attorney General Brian E. Frosh today released a report that provides a clear argument for why the nation's highest court should recognize marriage equality instead of allowing the decision to rest with states.

The report analyzes the origins of state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, and finds that those laws have been consistently driven by fear, prejudice and hate. In fact, the report finds, state political processes have been systematically degraded by animus directed at the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. In these circumstances, it is especially appropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene and resolve the matter, Attorney General Frosh said.

"Maryland has been a leader in advancing marriage equality. We must continue to play a role in making sure that everyone in the nation can enjoy the benefits of marriage regardless of sexual orientation," Attorney General Frosh said. "It is a matter of fundamental fairness."

Maryland must continue to assume a leading role in advocating for marriage equality elsewhere, Attorney General Frosh said, to protect the ability of families to make major life decisions about employment, education and travel without fear that their healthcare, parental rights, medical decision-making and other rights are at risk.

Maryland joined 16 other states in an amicus brief filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is reviewing same-sex marriage prohibitions in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The report, "The State of Marriage Equality in America," is referenced in the amicus brief.

"It might be tempting to think we've come far enough, when Maryland became the first state to legalize marriage by a popular vote," said state Del. Maggie McIntosh, a key architect of the state's 2012 marriage equality amendment. "But there is more work to be done, and I am pleased that Attorney General Frosh staking a strong leadership position to finish our fight."

"The rights of Marylanders and families in many other states remain at risk unless the Supreme Court decides this issue once and for all," said state Sen. Rich Madaleno, another leading voice for equality. "This report bolsters the case for why the Court needs to act this year, and solidify our gains once and for all."

"While we are fortunate in Maryland to have won marriage equality for same-sex couples, the outlook for some states on this issue is not favorable," said Carrie Evans, Executive Director of Equality Maryland, the LGBT civil rights advocacy group. "This report by Attorney General Frosh underscores the difficulty, and in some instances the almost impossibility, of achieving marriage equality on a state by state basis. We concur with the conclusion of this report that the time has come for the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Constitution requires no less than the right of same-sex couples to marry."

The report, which can be found on the website of the Office of the Attorney General here, shows that the timing of regressive marriage bans in most states is evidence of reactionary attempts to reinforce beliefs that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community was not entitled to equal status. For example, in the five years following a 1993 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court that a marriage ban needed further scrutiny, Hawaii and 30 other states passed laws banning same-sex marriage or refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

"Contained in the Attorney General's report are illustrations of prejudice and misinformation that make it clear that to ask same-sex couples to be patient asks too much," said Deputy Attorney General Thiru Vignarajah, "The promise of equality has long been within the province of the Supreme Court to protect."

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 28.