Opponents of same-sex marriage applauded Tuesday's 240-page decision, calling it a victory for traditional families and noting that most appellate courts in other states have reached similar conclusions. They also promised to mount a legislative effort of their own, vowing an aggressive push to explicitly ban same-sex nuptials in the state Constitution.

The court's majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the 1973 statute discriminates on the basis of gender. In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.

Within hours of the decision, many of the same-sex couples who had served as plaintiffs in the legal challenge gathered out side a Bolton Hill church to express anger and disappointment with the court's ruling.

Lisa Polyak and her partner of 25 years, Gita Deane, the lead plaintiffs, said they would keep fighting for legal protections for their 11- and 8-year-old daughters -- security they said would only be guaranteed through marriage.

"I feel like this decision is needlessly cruel to gay and lesbian families," said Polyak, speaking through tears during a news conference at Brown Memorial Church. "I wish these judges would have to face our children today because I have to."

David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said that the decision, while disappointing, did not mark the end.

"This is not the first time that the courts have not gone our way in this and other civil rights battles and it won't be the last time," he said. "I believe the march of history in this country is indeed a march toward justice."

Though the majority opinion rejected same-sex marriage, lawmakers who have for years made unsuccessful attempts at barring the unions in Maryland's Constitution said a ban was needed now more than ever.

"I assure you the constitutional marriage amendment will be reintroduced this session," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel County Republican and leading same-sex marriage opponent in the House. "Without it, there's nothing to preclude a future legal challenge made on a different argument or a different basis. The legislature ought to have the courage and the desire to publicly vote on the issue of marriage."

Since Massachusetts became the first -- and remains the only -- state to allow gays and lesbians to wed in 2003, an explosive debate over same-sex marriage has played out in courts and state capitals nationwide. Cases are pending in California and Vermont, but Maryland had been eyed as a bellwether state because of its strong liberal leanings.

Twenty-seven states have voted to ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions, while a handful -- Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire -- have adopted civil unions, which confer some of the rights of marriage.

Maryland's journey to the national spotlight began in July 2004, when 19 gays and lesbians filed a lawsuit in Baltimore Circuit Court challenging the 1973 statute. In January 2006, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock held that the law was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Attorney General's Office immediately appealed the decision. Last December, the Court of Appeals heard arguments.

The bitterly divided court was passionate in its opinions, with four judges supporting the majority, two penning dissents and one concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In the majority opinion, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage. But he also reminded lawmakers that they have the right to consider a law permitting same-sex marriages.

"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure ... our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," he said.

Harrell was joined by judges Dale R. Cathell, Clayton Greene Jr. and Alan M. Wilner. Judge Irma S. Raker concurred in part and dissented in part. Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and Lynne A. Battaglia wrote dissenting opinions.

The majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that denying gay marriages is a form of sex discrimination. In fact, sex discrimination does not apply to individuals, only to groups, the court stated.

"The court was unusually clear in choosing the side that sex discrimination is only from the point of view of the group," said Julie Shapiro, an associate professor at the University of Seattle School of Law. While Washington's highest court reached a similar conclusion in that state's same-sex marriage case, it did not articulate it so clearly, she said.

"The court seems to be saying that discriminating because someone is lesbian or they are gay is not as big of a problem," she said.

While the court recognized that gays and lesbians face discrimination, it also notes that as a group they are not "politically powerless," and therefore not entitled to protections.

"It is clear that homosexual persons, at least in terms of contemporary history, have been a disfavored group in both public and private spheres of our society," the decision reads. "This court nevertheless finds that a history of unequal treatment does not require that we deem suspect a classification based on sexual orientation."

"I don't think that's true," said Jana Singer, a law professor at the University of Maryland who was among the 58 professors from the University of Maryland and University of Baltimore law schools who filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the plaintiffs. "I think the fact that same-sex couples are excluded form the hundreds of protections of marriage indicates they are not politically powerful."

In his dissenting opinion, Bell said the majority underestimates the societal barriers facing gays and lesbians. He compared denying them the right to wed to the bans on interracial marriage, which were struck down 40 years ago in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia.

"To be sure, there are important differences between the African American experience and that of gay men and lesbians in this country, yet many of the arguments made in support of the antimiscegenation laws were identical to those made today in opposition to same-sex marriage," Bell wrote.

In her dissent. Battaglia said her fellow judges offer no "principled basis" for denying the plaintiffs' sex discrimination claim. "In reaching this result, the majority breathes life into the corpse of separate but equal," she wrote.

Raker, meanwhile said she fa vored decision similar to that of New Jersey's highest court, which last year required the state to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples within 180 days, but left it up to the state legislature whether to call such unions "marriage."

The court's ruling -- coming on the heels of similar conclusions reached by the high courts of many other states -- suggests that advocates of same-sex marriage are going to need to turn to legislative action, said Carl Tobias, the Williams Professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

Automakers General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG -- which has since sold its Chrysler unit -- sued in 2005 to block the law, arguing that states do not have the authority to regulate the amount of CO2 released by cars, which is closely related to fuel economy.

Vermont is one of nearly a dozen states that followed California's lead in adopting the strict standard, which is tougher than federal rules and is intended to reduce the rise in global temperatures and changing weather patterns associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

The automakers argued that they could not meet the new standards, and in court testimony said they would have to pull out of the state as a result.

The hearing will be before Judge Charles A. Porter, rather than Judge Gary Larson, who had accepted the plea. That could help Mr. Craig’s lawyers, who are arguing, in effect, that Judge Larson erred in accepting the plea.

It is not known whether Mr. Craig will appear, said Judy Smith, a spokeswoman for Billy Martin, a lawyer for Mr. Craig. Mr. Craig was arrested on June 11 by an airport police officer and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

In exchange, prosecutors dropped a gross misdemeanor charge of interference with privacy. Mr. Craig has since said his plea was a mistake. He filed a request on Monday to withdraw it.

The group is targeting former Attorney General Phill Kline, now the Johnson County District Attorney. Its clinic in Overland Park falls within Kline's jurisdiction, and he investigated it while attorney general.

The court's order was filed under seal, like all other documents in the case. There has been no public explanation of why Planned Parenthood is suing Kline or why Morrison wants to intervene.

Restoring the department's reputation also could give the administration more elbowroom to pursue its own agenda.

"The Justice Department needs to be depoliticized," said Guy Lewis, who oversaw the U.S. attorneys' offices under former Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Loyalty to the president is a wonderful thing, but it can't be the be-all and end-all."

For the most part, Justice Department lawyers said, the scandal did little to disrupt the day-to-day prosecution of cases. But Gonzales' handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and his subsequent shifting testimony damaged morale and the public's perception of a politically impartial Justice Department.

The department's standing was especially hurt by revelations that Gonzales' aides had screened job applicants based on their political credentials and by allegations that they had pressured Justice Department lawyers who were overseeing politically sensitive cases, current and former officials said.

Adding to the concern about the department's ability to remain impartial, Gonzales changed policy in a way that allows White House officials unprecedented access to information about pending criminal and civil cases. When Congress confronted him about the change, he testified that he, too, was concerned when he realized the possible effect.

Gonzales appears to have had little sense of the inner workings of his own department, some lawyers said.

When he was told that budget cuts meant that U.S. attorneys would be filing fewer cases, Gonzales turned to aides and asked, "When were you going to tell me this?" people familiar with the meeting said.

Paul Charlton, one of the Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys whom Gonzales fired, recalled that the attorney general raised eyebrows when he spoke at an annual meeting with U.S. attorneys about what he saw as the department's mission.

"He told us to remember that we work for the president," Charlton said. "Many of us, particularly the career people, were taken aback by that. Yes, we serve at the pleasure of the president. But we work for the people, not just the president."

Gonzales attempted to exert tight control over the U.S. attorneys' offices, unlike prior Republican administrations, which had worked to ensure that their top prosecutors had greater independence.

The attorney general and his aides pushed department lawyers in the field to carry out the president's priorities, sometimes to the detriment of local needs.

"It's OK to tell a U.S. attorney that they're not cutting the mustard because they're not prosecuting immigration cases," said Bill Mateja, a former federal prosecutor in Texas and a former senior counsel under Ashcroft. "But it's not OK to bring politics to bear, and in some cases it appears there was more of a focus on the politics and less of a focus on actually fulfilling the president's initiatives."