ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) – A proposal to ban same-sex marriages will be a contentious issue in the 2006 Maryland General Assembly session, but just how big an issue and how much of an impact it will have on next year’s election may depend on a circuit court judge in Baltimore.

Gay rights opponents have failed in the past to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, in part because state law already defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Legislative leaders have been able to keep the emotionally charged issue in the background by arguing that there is no need to write into the constitution a ban on something that is already prohibited by law.

But that law has been challenged in Baltimore Circuit Court, and if Judge Brooke M. Murdoch rules it’s unconstitutional, opponents of gay rights say that will give them a weapon to use to force the amendment out of committees and to the House and Senate for debate.

The presence of a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot next November would further complicate an election that is likely to be the most unpredictable in Maryland in decades, with the two parties anticipating close battles for governor and the U.S. Senate, and Democrats striving to hold on to their leads of more than 2-to-1 in the state Senate and House of Delegates.

Regardless of what Murdoch does, opponents of same-sex marriage plan to introduce an amendment that would ban marriage as well as civil unions between same-sex couples.

“If the will of the public is heard, I believe that we will not only get the amendment out [of committee], we will pass it and it will be on the ballot so the citizens of Maryland can vote on this most crucial issue,” said Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel.

Democratic leaders would prefer not to have a constitutional amendment on the ballot that might become a dominant issue in the campaign, and they are playing down the prospects that an amendment will pass during the 90-day session that begins Jan. 11 – even if Murdoch should rule the law unconstitutional. Regardless of how she rules, both sides agree her decision will be appealed and the case will eventually be decided by the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

“Traditionally, when there is an issue in front of the judiciary, the legislature waits to see how the process turns out before determining whether and for what reason we will overturn the decision of the courts,” said House Speaker Michael Busch, D-Anne Arundel.

Democrat Brian Frosh, chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, agreed, saying he would be surprised if there is any major change in gay rights laws at the 2006 legislative session.

But Republican political consultant Kevin Igoe said a ruling by Murdoch that the law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional would have a significant impact on the upcoming session.

“It would put a lot of folks, mostly Democrats from rural districts, in a very difficult spot,” he said.

Republicans already plan to go after Democratic incumbents from southern Maryland and in the moderate-to-conservative districts in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties that Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich carried in the 2002 gubernatorial election. A vote to reject a same-sex marriage ban – either in committee or in the full House or Senate – would undoubtedly be used against some Democratic incumbents by their GOP opponents.

If the same-sex marriage amendment should wind up on the ballot, Igoe believes conservatives would benefit because of the impact on voter turnout.

“I think there are more people who do not vote regularly who oppose gay marriage than there are those who strongly support it and do not vote,” he said.

In addition to the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, legislators may be confronted by two other gay rights issues in the form of two bills, vetoed by Ehrlich, that were passed by the 2005 General Assembly at the urging of gay rights activists. The bills, which would have applied to both same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual partners, would have allowed couples to make medical decisions for their partners and to add a partner to a deed of property without paying the state transfer tax.

The governor said he supported the goals of both bills. But he objected to the creation of “life partnerships” in the medical decision-making bill “that could lead to the erosion of the sanctity of traditional marriage” and said the tax bill was so broad that people could create sham relationships to avoid paying taxes.

The governor offered to work with the Legislature to develop a medical decision-making law “that provides assistance for those in need while respecting the uniqueness of traditional marriage under Maryland law.”

Shareese DeLeaver, a spokesperson for the governor, said a compromise bill “is still very much a possibility.”

Delegate Richard Madaleno, D-Montgomery, an openly gay member of the General Assembly, said overriding the vetoes would be difficult, and no decision has been made by legislative leaders on whether to try. He said four Republicans who supported the medical decision-making bill in the Senate probably would not go against Ehrlich and vote to override his veto.