The other day, I said that Maryland Attorney General Gansler's opinion about recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages was just a prediction of what the courts would say, not legally binding.<\/p>\n
It looks like I wasn't quite right about that. Or I may have been mostly right about the opinion itself, but I wasn't aware of the context around it, which apparently gives it more weight than I thought it had.<\/p>\n
My new impression—which may still be wrong—is that although his opinion does not have the force of law, it does direct state agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages starting almost immediately.<\/p>\n
I'm surprised by that. It seems to me that the opinion clearly states that it's a prediction rather than a prescription.<\/p>\n
But a Maryland Daily Record<\/cite> article<\/a> says:<\/p>\n The immediate effect of Gansler's opinion is to put state agencies on notice that they should extend to these same-sex couples all the rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples in the state, Gansler said after issuing his opinion.<\/p>\n [...]<\/p>\n [Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said,] \"I am confident that the attorney general and his office will provide all necessary advice to state agencies on how to comply with the law and I expect all state agencies to work with the attorney general's office to ensure compliance with the law.\"<\/p>\n Gansler's opinion lacks the force of law, but makes clear that the attorney general, the state's top legal adviser, believes the state is constitutionally required to recognize the same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (Fwiw, I don't believe the opinion says the state is constitutionally required to recognize those marriages. I think it says that, because of a long-established legal principle and a lack of opposing public policy, the courts probably won't decide not to recognize them—which is a very different and much weaker statement.)<\/p>\n\n