The House of Delegates Judiciary Committee on Tuesday postponed a vote on a bill allowing same-sex marriage after a day of political posturing that included absent delegates, shifting vote counts and long meetings among legislative leaders.
The bill causing so much contention was the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which changes the definition of marriage from “between a man and a woman” to “between two individuals” and permits churches to refuse to perform same-sex unions if the practice violates their beliefs.
The committee attempted to hold an unscheduled vote after Tuesday morning’s general session, but three co-sponsors, Delegates Tiffany Alston, D-Prince George’s, Jill Carter, D-Baltimore, and Curtis Anderson, D-Baltimore, were absent. Chairman Joseph Vallario rescheduled the vote until after the committee’s afternoon schedule.
Around 6 p.m., after five hours of testimony on unrelated bills, and long stretches of time where he was not in the hearing room, Vallario again postponed the vote, arguing that not all delegates were present and that it was too late to call the vote.
“The hour is late, there are delegates missing on this side and that side … we might vote tomorrow, but I don’t know,” Vallario said.
Tuesday morning’s absences came as a surprise to the bill’s sponsors and speaks to the internal struggle going on among delegates who are wavering over their stance on same-sex marriage, said Delegate Bonnie Cullison, D-Montgomery.
Up until the end of last week, passage of the bill in the House seemed likely, but as of Tuesday, several delegates were still on the fence.
“Since the Senate has passed the same-sex marriage bill, many delegates are struggling with their votes, now that they have to push a button,” Cullison said.
Opponents saw tonight’s vote postponement as undemocratic.
“It’s supposed to be around here that you’re allowed to vote your conscience on these social issues, like abortion, and like gay marriage. Apparently the Democratic leadership is not going to allow certain members to vote their conscience and they’re going to force them to vote the way they want. They’re going to twist arms until they get the result they want,” said Delegate Michael Smigiel, R-Upper Shore.
Delegate Jill Carter, D-Baltimore, who was absent from both of Tuesday’s scheduled votes, said she didn’t want the leadership to take her vote “for granted”.
“My experience here is that things get concluded very early when there’s a will to do so. I think it’s clear that the bill was rushed through the Senate. And then we had hearings (on the bill) until 10 o’clock Friday night and then we were expected to vote yesterday. So I think there’s clearly a will to push this through and to get a resolution,” said Carter.
“I don’t feel good about disappointing my colleagues, but I think that has to be secondary to my obligation to do as much as I can (for my constituents),” said Carter, who argued that funding for schools and other issues should get as much priority as same-sex marriage.
Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said he was surprised by Tuesday’s wrangling.
“I’m actually shocked that today has gone like it has, but I have to say, I’m very happy that the process is stalled. What I gathered today was the additional six hours of public pressure put on members and that’s having an effect,” Dwyer said.
He said he has directed thousands of opponents of the bill to call their delegates to vote no on the bill.
“There are literally thousands and thousands of calls and emails going out right now across the state … this is a major issue. This is more important than slots to the voters. This is a major, major shift in public policy and a cultural issue,” Dwyer said.
Groups opposed to same-sex marriage were also encouraged by Tuesday’s stalled committee vote.
Derek McCoy, director of the Association of Maryland Families, said that in both Alston and Carter’s district, the majority of constituents do not support the bill.
“My group and a broader group of clergy are on the phone to the legislators and we’re making calls to their districts. Let the people tell them they don’t want this to go down. We’re not brokering deals, we’re not doing the backroom deals … we’re just being pure and letting them know we don’t want it to go down,” McCoy said.
The committee of 22 delegates requires 12 votes for passage of a bill. The committee will meet again Wednesday afternoon where a vote on the same-sex marriage bill could be taken.
— Maggie Clark
Margaret E. Hinson says
“Politics as usual”. We take one step forward, two steps back.
Personally, I cannot understand why Christians or any group see this bill as a “threat” to themselves, to Religion, to Marriage, or to The American Way of Life.
If you are a man and don’t want to marry one, then don’t. (To me, it’s the same as the very simple and reasonable response I make to those who are against allowing legal abortions: Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one.)
The Declaration of Independence recognizes “the pursuit of happiness” as my inalienable right – and yours. Given that, I remain stunned that there was EVER a law in any state forbidding two adults to create a legally recognized family/marriage/partnership — or whatever they want to call it — that affords them the same rights and privileges allowed to any other two adults doing the same.
How does gender even relate to that? “Marriage”, as seen by the law, is a legal action that can only be undone by yet another legal action. Why contend there’s anything sacred about it at its most basic level – the only level that counts in court ?
Not by any stretch are all marriages “unions under God that only God can dissolve”. Check the divorce statistics. And save the sacred stuff for whatever religious rites – if any – the parties voluntarily choose to hold and abide by.
I find it astonishing that employers – especially those in the public sector – are still allowed to deny insurance coverage to same-sex partners, for example. Equality and fairness — so I thought – are the basis for law in the USA. Not religion. Not narrow-minded bigotry. Not fear.
It’s time that we all grow up and recognize that a legal right or privilege granted to one “group” is de facto due to another. Allowing someone else to have a “right” similar to yours does not diminish the value of that right to you – unless you let it. And if you do: shame!
There should not be any more debate. Can’t stomach legalizing “same-sex” marriage? Then level the playing field: outlaw “opposite sex” marriage too. Fair is fair.
Vote the bill into law and get on with running the State.
Gren Whitman says
Delegates Alston, Carter, and Anderson should be ashamed of themselves. Tho knowing little of the details in this House matter, I am sure that Del. Washington, for one, is reading the riot act to those three blind mice!
MBTroup says
“Personally, I cannot understand why Christians or any group see this bill as a “threat” to themselves, to Religion, to Marriage, or to The American Way of Life.”
Because that’s what they believe – some more actively than others. The snag here is that two supporters have decided to withhold their vote for politicking on unrelated issues.
“The bill causing so much contention was the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which changes the definition of marriage from “between a man and a woman” to “between two individuals” and permits churches to refuse to perform same-sex unions if the practice violates their beliefs.”
What’s unfortunate is that these two performed their shenanigans after Senator Rosapepe made sure to include language sensitive to the religious element.
M Turner says
The pathetic part is those who add language to a bill that is not relevant to the original bill. Is the additional language not considered “pork”? Politics as usual! If every bill went through the process without adendums not directly related to the original bill perhaps the process would be more efficient, regardless of the outcome.
Love my God! says
Hollywood has propagated the myth that when it comes to marriage “all you need is love.” This is simply not true. Marriage is not based on emotion any more than any other partnership in life is. Marriage, like many human activities, involves emotion but it is not constituted by the presence of any particular set of emotions. I do not deny that many homosexuals feel deeply for their partners; however I do assert that no matter how deep the feelings, what they have is not a marriage in God’s sight. It is a beautiful deception.
Just because an emotion is deep or powerful does not justify acting upon it. Like drugs, like adultery, like the abuse of alcohol or the love of money, or the power rush of human ego trips, there are emotions which are powerful and addictive and ultimately terribly destructive. Same sex marriages must satisfy criteria other than emotion. A marriage is more than a sexual pleasure center. A marriage is a social unit that is interwoven with dozens of other lives.
Homosexual passions and acts are unnatural, shameful, contrary to sound doctrine and deny entrance to the Kingdom of God. This being so they CANNOT be the basis of a Christian MARRIAGE sanctioned by God’s Church. The Church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation. No marriage can be sanctioned by the Church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put the couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may LEGISLATE, the law of God is clear – that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.
Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community which stands under the blessing or curse of God. Societies that put emotional fulfillment before right actions and principles will soon give way to a multitude of addictions and deep corruptions and collapse. God will judge any society that institutes same sex marriages.
I do not deny that many homosexuals feel deeply for their partners; however I do assert that no matter how deep the feelings, what they have is not a marriage in God’s sight. It is a beautiful deception.
Steve Payne says
Everyone has the right to define and value marriage as they want. It’s not the issue here. The issue is, can the state deny the rights of one group to something allowed to another group. The state can do this if it can prove a “State Interest” in such a restriction. Popularity is not a valid state interest.
Marriage performed in a church is totally different. Every church can make it’s own rules and that’s how it’s always been and should be.
I think it would be much better if governments could clean up these discriminations through legislation but politics can be tough. Many civil rights problems had to be decided by the courts when politics failed.
Keith Thompson says
Love my God! wrote “marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community”. I’m not sure I follow the logic of that statement. I’ve been happily married to my wife for 16 years and I’ve yet to see how our marriage is a greater good for the community. Sure we pay our taxes and keep our yard relatively well kept up, but our contributions to society in that regard would be just as valid if we were simply cohabitating. I’ve often heard the argument that since homosexual couples cannot procreate, they can’t be married since one of the responsibilities of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply”. Well, by that standard, my marriage does not benefit the greater good of the community since for medical reasons my wife and are unable to be fruitful and multiply. Does that mean our marriage should be declared null and void?
The problem with defining marriage by purely religious reasons is that it doesn’t take into account that people are not required to adhere to those particular religious beliefs. As cold as this may sound; from a legal standpoint, a marriage is a contract and people should be free to enter into that contract however they see fit. How marriage is defined is entirely up to the couple, their church, or both. In a free society; no individual, community or government can intrude on how a couple defines their relationship.