More News

ANNAPOLIS — Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler insists the same-sex marriage opinion he issued recently was a matter of law, not politics.

"Yes, I have to run for political office every four years, but my job is apolitical by definition," Gansler said in an interview March 3.

Apolitical or not, there is little doubt that the opinion has created a political firestorm with Gansler (D) at the center as the target of criticism from same-sex marriage opponents.

Some Democratic lawmakers from more conservative districts griped that the Feb. 24 opinion, which said that Maryland courts would recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state, could complicate their re-election chances.

But the opinion could complicate things for Gansler, who will stand for re-election this year, as well.

"You would almost have to take him at his word that this was a legal opinion and not a political opinion, because I'm having a hard time trying to find the political upside to this," said Todd E. Eberly, an assistant professor of political science and coordinator of public policy studies at St. Mary's College of Maryland.

Even some former political foes said they would take Gansler at his word.

"Despite my history with Mr. Gansler, I have to say I do commend the Attorney General's Office for the comprehensive job they did," said Jason W. Shoemaker, who served as campaign manager for former Frederick County State's Attorney Scott L. Rolle (R) in his 2006 bid for attorney general against Gansler.

Shoemaker, an attorney with Shoemaker & Connor LLC of Bethesda, also represented a Bowie man in a legal challenge to Gansler's candidacy. Nikos Stanford Liddy argued that Gansler did not have the required 10 years of practicing law in Maryland. The Court of Appeals ruled against the challenge, saying it was brought too late.

"Too often the legal discussion [over same-sex marriage] gets bogged down with personal aspects of the issue and clouds it," Shoemaker said.

Gansler's opinion keeps the issue in a legal context, Shoemaker said, citing a portion early on in the 53-page opinion that states, "We must put aside personal policy views concerning same-sex marriage and focus on how the Court of Appeals would apply choice-of-law rules about out-of-state marriages."

Still, the issue remained tied up in personal views of public policy this week as state House and Senate committees heard bills to legalize same-sex marriage.

Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. said he will continue to pursue impeachment of Gansler for issuing an opinion that "usurps the law," despite a legal opinion saying the House cannot impeach the state's top lawyer.

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.

The impeachment opinion, released March 1 by Dan Friedman, the General Assembly's counsel in the Attorney General's Office, said the Maryland Constitution states that the courts are the "forum for proceedings to remove an attorney general."

In the one-paragraph-long response to a request by House Speaker Michael E. Busch, Friedman cited Article V of the Maryland Constitution as well as a reference guide he authored on the constitution.

Meanwhile, about two dozen pastors gathered in Annapolis on March 3 to push a Senate bill that would declare invalid same-sex marriages performed outside of Maryland.

Bobby G. Henry Jr., an attorney and a minister at Jericho City of Praise in Landover who ran unsuccessfully for the District 23 Senate seat in the 2006 primary, said he took issue with Gansler's legal reasoning.

"In order for the state of Maryland to give full faith and credit to any decision, whether it's a judicial decision, whether it's same-sex marriage, it has to not violate the public policy of the state of Maryland," he said.

Gansler's opinion "clearly violates" state policy, Henry said.

There is misunderstanding on the issue, including people who mistakenly believe that a bill to legalize same-sex marriages will require all faiths to perform such ceremonies, Gansler said.

"Most people who are against the opinion haven't read the opinion," he said.

"Really, the opinion was far less about gay marriage and far more about giving full faith and credit to other states' contracts," he said. "... It's federalism. It's states' rights. Substitute the concept of a driver's license with the concept of a marriage license. Would you still have the same problems with us recognizing that license? And the answer, of course, is no."

Gansler's description of how his office arrived at the opinion makes the process sound clinical.

Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington, the lead sponsor of the Senate bill to legalize same-sex marriage, requested the advisory opinion in May.

"We released it when it was completed," Gansler said. "Bob McDonald, who is the chief of our opinions section, when he completed it, I signed it. We released it the next morning."

He denied that the timing of the opinion was in any way linked to the District of Columbia's City Council's recent decision to legalize same-sex marriages, a law that took effect March 3.

Same-sex couples in Maryland could have traveled to any of the six states where same-sex marriages are legal before March 3, Gansler said. "If you want to get married, you're going to go get married," he said.

Eberly said Gansler's decision "took a tremendous amount of political courage."

Should the opinion, and its timing during an election year session, make Democrats vulnerable at the polls in 2010, it could hurt Gansler's prospects for an expected run for governor in 2014, Eberly said.

"If it hurts the Democratic Party in 2010, if it's perceived as helping Bob Ehrlich win back the governor's mansion, Gansler will become unpopular with Democrats," he said.

How it all plays out won't be known until after November, said Eberly, adding that he does not believe Gansler will face serious challengers to his re-election.

Del. Benjamin S. Barnes, the lead House sponsor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, said Gansler's opinion "puts him in the mainstream of the Democratic Party."

"We've got a progressive state," said Barnes (D-Dist. 21) of College Park, an attorney. "And I don't think this decision was political. If you read the decision, it's founded on good law."

House Minority Leader Anthony J. O'Donnell disagreed, calling the opinion "very thin logic."

"And I continue to see that out of this attorney general's office — very political decisions that masquerade as good, reasoned, scholarly lawyering," said O'Donnell (R-Dist. 29C) of Lusby.

Gansler testified in favor of the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in each of the past two years, but did not this year.

"It is unlikely any legislation is going to pass on either side of that issue, and it will more likely be dealt with in the courts," he said.

In 2007, on a 4-3 vote, the Court of Appeals upheld the state's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"Now, there have been three new judges appointed to the Court of Appeals since that time," Gansler said. "Will the court ultimately throw out that statute on equal protection and other grounds? Absolutely. When will that happen? It's unclear."

Gansler said he agreed with Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr.'s recent assessment that the decision is "ho-hum," because the issue likely will be decided by the courts.

"Ultimately, it is ho-hum because 15 years from now people are going to look back at this whole issue and say, ‘I don't understand. What was the issue?'" Gansler said.