As Maryland's highest court prepares to hear a same-sex marriage case on Monday, a group of psychologists, social workers and child welfare advocates spoke out yesterday in support of families headed by gays and lesbians.

At a news conference in Baltimore, the professionals highlighted an extensive body of scientific research supporting the idea that children raised by lesbian and gay couples develop as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.

They stressed their belief however, that the children of gay and lesbian couples would enjoy additional benefits if their parents were allowed to marry.

Laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, "provide a state-sanctioned stigma against children and families," said Ruth Fassinger, professor of psychology at the University of Maryland.

Extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples would offer societal supports their families now lack, said Daphne McClelland, executive director of the Maryland Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

"We know its best for children if their parents have a legal connection," McClelland said.

There are more than 15,000 same sex couples in the state of Maryland and between one quarter and one third are raising children, according to Susan Leviton, founder of the Baltimore-based Advocates for Children and Youth. Couples who are not allowed to marry face barriers such as getting insurance coverage for their families.

In January, a Baltimore Circuit judge ruled in favor of the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, finding that a 33-year old state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was discriminatory and could not withstand a constitutional challenge. The case was appealed to the state's highest court.

Mary Otto

As a state appeals court prepares to debate the constitutionality of Maryland's law prohibiting same-sex marriage, a new Washington Post poll shows the electorate is decidedly split.

Half of th 902 registered voters surveyed June 19-25 favored allowing gay and lesbian couple to form civil unions, up from 44 percent in a January 2004 Post poll.; 42 percent would favor a law allowing same-sex marriage, up from 35 percent in the previous poll.

The divisions were more striking when the polling sample was split into black and white voters.

A full 65 percent of black voters surveyed opposed both same-sex marriage and civil unions for gay couples. By contrast, 57 percent of white voters actually favored civil unions, with 41 percent opposed. On the question of same-sex marriage, 53 percent of white voters opposed the idea, with 44 percent favored it.

That may explain why Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who's hoping to win over black voters in his bid for an open U.S. Senate seat, has spoken out against marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

But political analysts say Steele should not make too much of the issue, lest he associate himself too closely with the conservative Republican pushing the issue.

The poll shows that black voters have a much better impression of Steele than they do of the Maryland GOP or President Bush. And the risk of Steele being tied too closely to Bush is considerable: Seventy-nine percent of black voters in the poll said they would be less likely to support a candidate who had Bush's backing.

Gay and lesbian advocates expressed deep displeasure today with Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's decision to headline a "marriage protection summit" in Lanham earlier this week.

Steele told about 100 ministers gathered at the Hope Christian Church that he believes "marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman."

"This is the way it's always been and always should be," he said. "What part of this don't people understand? What don't they get?"

This morning, Equality Maryland sent out a broadside against Steele in response.

"Our Lt. Governor officially kicked off his anti-gay U.S. Senate campaign this week," said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. "No one is surprised that he has chosen to attack gay and lesbian Americans under the guise of "protecting" marriage. This is a transparent Karl Rove tactic designed to sway voters into thinking he is running something other than an empty shell of a campaign."

Matt Mosk

A legislative committee rejected last night an effort by Anne Arundel Del. Donald Dwyer Jr. to remove from the bench the Baltimore circuit judge who ruled in January that the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional.

In a heated debate that occurred between 10:30 and 11:15 p.m., apparently timed to limit Dwyer's media exposure, members of the House Judiciary Committee called Dwyer's effort "ridiculous and frivolous" before rejecting it on a vote of 20 to 3.

Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel) argued that Judge M. Brooke Murdock showed incompetence in disregarding the legislative record surrounding a 1973 law that defined marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. He said the judge's declaration that the law was discriminatory should be grounds for her removal. Had he succeeded in persuading the committee members to give his impeachment effort a hearing, it would have been the first in Maryland since the Civil War.

Democrat Curt Anderson (D-Baltimore) led a series of speakers in a lengthy legal analysis of Dwyer's proposal. "I don't see there are even remotely any grounds for taking the action you suggest," Anderson said.

Del. Donald Dwyer Jr. made good yesterday on his threat to try and impeach the Baltimore circuit judge who ruled recently that the state could not prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.

His "Address For The Removal Of Judge M. Brooke Murdock," which charges her with violating the public trust, abusing her power, incompetence, willful neglect of duty, and misbehavior in office, was met coolly in the House chamber.

About 35 House members walked slowly off the floor, blocking camera shots that would have captured Dwyer introducing the resolution.

Del. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery) said the legislative walk-off was "very much an impromptu thing. We all said, 'Look what he's doing. We don't want to be a party to this.'"