Duckworth v. Deane

• Decision Date: 28 July 2006
• Docket Number: No. 101, September Term, 2004.,101, September Term, 2004.
• Citation: 393 Md. 524,903 A.2d 883
• Parties: Robert P. DUCKWORTH, et al. v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

903 A.2d 883

393 Md. 524

Robert P. DUCKWORTH, et al. v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al.

No. 101, September Term, 2004.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 28, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Steven L. Tiedemann (Coover, Barr & Tidemann, LLC, Columbia; David R. Langdon of Langdon & Shafer, LLC, Cincinnati, OH; Benjamin W. Bull, Glen E. Lavy and Dale Schowengerdt, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ), all on brief, for appellants.

Matt M. Paavola (Law Office of Matt M. Paavola & Associates, Baltimore; William F. Mulroney of Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, Baltimore), all on brief, for appellants.

Andrew H. Baida (Caroline D. Ciraolo of Rosenberg, Martin, Funk, Greenberg, LLP, Baltimore; Kenneth Y. Choe and James D. Esseks, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of New York, NY; Arthur B. Spitzer of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the National Capital Area, Washington, DC; David R. Rocah, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland, Baltimore), all on brief, for appellees.

Steven M. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, and Margaret Ann Nolan, Assistant Attorney General of Baltimore, and Robert A. Zarnoch and Kathryn

M. Rowe, Assistant Attorneys General, Annapolis), all on brief.

Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned) and LAWRENCE F. RODOWSKY (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

ELDRIDGE, J.

These appeals are from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in which the Circuit Court denied three motions to intervene in an action challenging the constitutionality of a Maryland statute. The statute, Maryland Code (1984, 2004 Repl.Vol.), § 2-201 of the Family Law Article, states: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State." The case at bar presents no issue as to the constitutionality of § 2-201. Instead, the issues in these appeals concern only the matter of intervention. On March 11, 2005, we issued an order affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court denying intervention. This opinion sets forth the reasons for that affirmance.

I.

The case began on July 7, 2004, when nineteen plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Clerks of the Circuit Courts for Baltimore City, Prince George's County, St. Mary's County, Washington County, and Dorchester County. The complaint identified the plaintiffs as "nine Maryland lesbian and gay couples and one Maryland gay man." Four of the couples resided in Baltimore City; three of them resided in Prince George's County; one couple resided in Dorchester County, and the "gay man" resided in Washington County. As to the ninth couple, the complaint stated that one resided in St. Mary's County and the other resided in Costa Rica.

The complaint alleged that each of the nine couples applied to the defendant Clerks of Court in Baltimore City, Prince George's County, Dorchester County, or St. Mary's County for a marriage license submitting "all of the paperwork and fees necessary to obtain a marriage license," but that each of the Clerks of Court "refused to issue a marriage license . . . for the sole reason that [the applicants] are a same-sex couple." The complaint also stated that the Washington County resident "seeks the right to marry" a person of the same sex, but that the "office of the Washington County Circuit Court Clerk will not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples."

The complaint went on to allege numerous disadvantages which the plaintiffs purportedly suffered by not being able to marry. The plaintiffs asserted that § 2-201 of the Family Law Article violated Articles 46 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.¹ The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that § 2-201 was in violation of Articles 46 and 24, and an injunction "[e]njoining Defendants from refusing to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiff couples or other same-sex couples because they are same-sex couples."

The defendants, represented by the Attorney General of Maryland, filed an answer which, inter alia, admitted that § 2-201 does "not permit the issuance of a [marriage] license to same sex couples," admitted that the defendants will not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples," and denied that " § 2-201 violates the Maryland Constitution." The defendants requested that the Circuit Court deny the injunctive relief sought and enter a declaratory judgment that " § 2-201 is constitutional under Articles 46 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights."

As mentioned earlier, three separate motions to intervene were filed in the case. The first was filed by the appellant Robert P. Duckworth, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, who sought intervention represented by his own privately retained counsel. Duckworth asserted that he had a "right" to intervene because he "is charged with issuing marriage licenses" and, "[i]f plaintiffs are successful, this Court will create uncertainty with regard to Mr. Duckworth's conduct of his office and, whether or not he complies with this Court's order, he would be subject to potential civil and criminal claims." Duckworth characterized this as a "personal interest." Alternatively, Duckworth sought permissive intervention "because (1) his defense to the relief sought by the Plaintiffs has a question of law in common with the instant action; (2) the statute subject to review in this action affects him personally; and (3) Plaintiffs' action relies for ground of claim or defense on a constitutional provision affecting Mr. Duckworth."

Duckworth alleged that he "believes each of the Court Clerks sued in this action is sympathetic to Plaintiffs' cause," that the defendants are represented by the Attorney General's Office, and that "Duckworth and his counsel . . . doubt that office's commitment to the defense of traditional marriage in Maryland." Duckworth raised one argument which had not been raised by the Attorney General representing the defendants, namely Duckworth's contention that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City "lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction" to rule upon the constitutionality of § 2-201 of the Family Law Article.

The second motion for intervention was filed by eight members of the General Assembly of Maryland. Five were members of the House of Delegates and three were members of the Senate, and they sought intervention represented by their privately retained counsel. They also claimed that they had a right to intervene, and, alternatively, they sought permissive intervention. The eight General Assembly members expressed "doubt" about the Attorney General's "commitment to the defense of . . . § 2-201," and they indicated that their "interest in their legislative authority" would not be adequately represented by the Attorney General. The eight members claimed an interest in the subject matter, stating:

"As legislative supporters of . . . § 2-201 and the policy which it reflects, Intervenors' ability to regulate marriage will be affected by this case. Intervenors have an official interest to intervene here where their legislative authority to regulate marriage is threatened by encroachments proscribed by the separation of powers provision of the Maryland Constitution. . . . If the Court finds . . . § 2-201 unconstitutional, Intervenors have an interest in appealing that decision."

The legislators went on to suggest that a judicial decision invalidating § 2-201 of the Family Law Article would be a "judicial encroachment" upon the authority of the General Assembly and would violate the separation of powers principle contained in Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.² Like the argument in the Duckworth motion, the eight members of the General Assembly contended that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City "lacks subject matter jurisdiction" to decide the constitutionality of § 2-201 of the Family Law Article. The eight legislators also suggested that the Attorney General would not raise this jurisdictional issue.

The third motion to intervene was filed pro se by Toni Marie Davis, a resident of Baltimore City, who also claimed a right to intervene and, alternatively, sought permissive intervention. Davis asserted "that the out come of this action will affect not only my everyday life, but the everyday lives of every resident in Maryland." Davis continued:

"[T]he homosexual life style is against my religion, which is protected under the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And the out come of this case will affect my ability to protect my religious beliefs and interest in not allowing a person or group of people to force me to acknowledge [their] chosen way of living, [their] life style."

The Circuit Court, by two orders filed on September 21, 2004, and one order filed on September 30, 2004, denied all three motions to intervene. Mr. Duckworth, the eight legislators, and Ms. Davis all filed timely notices of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Prior to argument in the Court of Special Appeals, this Court issued a writ of certiorari. Duckworth v. Deane, 384 Md. 448, 863 A.2d 997 (2004).

II.

Maryland Rule 2-214 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Rule 2-214. Intervention.

(a) Of right. Upon timely motion, a person shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when the person has an unconditional right to intervene as a matter of law; or (2) when the person claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and the person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest unless it is adequately represented by existing parties.

(b) Permissive. (1) Generally. Upon timely motion a person may be permitted to intervene in an action when the person's claim or defense has a question of law or fact in common with the action."

* * *

Duckworth's argument...