Gov. Martin O’Malley touted increased religious protections as he promoted a new same-sex marriage bill Tuesday that supporters hope can overcome the objections raised last year.
Flanked by lawmakers, religious leaders and union members, the governor repeatedly invoked the values of equal rights and religious freedom, which, he says, the legislation protects.
“Yesterday we submitted a marriage equality bill which balances equal protection of individual rights with the important protection of religious liberty and religious freedom,” O’Malley said, at a press conference in front of Government House. O’Malley hosted same-sex couples at a breakfast before the announcement.
Supporters of same-sex marriage see more explicit language regarding religious exemptions as a key part of their 2012 campaign.
Last year’s bill said ministers and churches “may not be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
The new bill, SB 241, includes broader language that, among other guarantees, ensures that each religious entity “has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, policy teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith.”
“We expanded the language to include provisions from other states that have passed marriage equality with religious exemptions, just to take away any ambiguity about whether or not religious exemption applied in certain circumstances,” said Delegate Heather Mizeur, D-Montgomery, who is openly gay. “It’s just a more wordy way of providing for religious exemption.”
Opponents said the reworked provisions offer no protection to faith communities that oppose same-sex marriage.
“You can’t protect the religious community from same-sex marriage,” said Delegate Emmett Burns, Jr., D-Baltimore County, a minister and staunch opponent of the legislation.
The introduction of the Civil Marriage Protection Act marks the resurfacing of a divisive issue that polarized lawmakers and generated heated debate at the State House last year.
Bill supporters have partnered with Marylanders for Marriage Equality, a wide-reaching coalition that includes labor voices, lobbyists and a range of faith leaders.
Opponents are looking to religious groups such as Progressive Clergy and Laity in Action to pressure delegates who remain on the fence.
“We are targeting black delegates who came to our churches and said how much they loved us and then voted against us,” said Burns, the organization’s founder, who plans to hold rallies in Prince George’s County. “They will be held accountable.”
Other measures, he said, include delivering petitions and holding a “massive rally” in Annapolis on Jan. 30.
While last year’s same-sex marriage bill was assigned only to the House Judiciary Committee, the bill this year will be jointly assigned to the Health and Government Operations Committee.
“I’m getting some people that are calling me to say they don’t support it, and they’re coming from churches, mainly the Catholic Church,” said Delegate James W. Hubbard, D-Prince George’s, a bill supporter and member of the Health and Government Operations Committee and chair of the Public Health and Long-Term Care subcommittee.
“I listen to everybody, and I’ve been here 20 years. Those who really get wound up on these things are the ones who call. The people who support these things don’t call,” he said.
Opposition from constituents and religious communities was central to derailing the bill in the House last year.
“With every passing Sunday, where the preachers in some of the conservative districts were working really hard on this issue from the pulpit, we would see our vote count slip each Monday,” Mizeur said.
With the bill expected to pass again in the Senate, supporters say they are looking for four or five new votes in the House, a goal complicated by the strong feelings surrounding the issue.
“Certain issues, you could have great marketing, you could have all these people stand behind it, but people have their own thoughts about it,” said bill co-sponsor Delegate Shawn Z. Tarrant, D-Baltimore. “You’re not going to be able to bring up any type of strategy that’s going to swing them one way or the other.”
The bill passed the Senate last year by a 25-21 margin, but stalled in the House when supporters could not garner the 71 votes they needed.
Cosponsors of the House version of the bill balked as they moved toward a vote. Delegates Jill Carter, D-Baltimore, and Tiffany Alston, D-Prince George’s, were notably absent for an important vote during a March Judiciary Committee hearing.
Carter eventually voted in favor in committee, while Alston, who now faces unrelated theft and misconduct charges, voted against.
Fellow cosponsor and committee member Delegate Sam Arora, D-Montgomery, who campaigned on behalf of, and received donations from, the gay and lesbian community, went back and forth late before voting for it in the Judiciary Committee.
Should the bill become law, it will likely go before voters in a referendum, which has historically meant a dead-end for same-sex marriage legislation across the country.
According to a January poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies, 49 percent of Marylanders favor same-sex marriage, while 47 percent oppose it.
Currently, the District of Columbia and six other states allow same-sex couples to marry.
by Tom Mcparland
James Lunasea says
Take a look at Delegate Mizeur’s speech on the House floor last year:
https://youtu.be/wOvmaSF7bpM
Keith Thompson says
‘“You can’t protect the religious community from same-sex marriage,” said Delegate Emmett Burns, Jr., D-Baltimore County, a minister and staunch opponent of the legislation.’
By that logic, you can’t protect the rest of the community from prejudice or bigotry either. I’m not aware that the right to not be offended is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It’s perfectly legitimate to let individuals and religions define marriage for themselves and let them refuse to participate in sanctioning a sex-same marriage; but when the argument gets expanded to the point where the basic civil rights in a same-sex marriage are perceived as a threat and therefore not permitted, you have authorized government sanctioned discrimination which is no different than government sanctioned racial segregation. If someone sees government sanction of same sex marriage as support of a perverse practice, perhaps the way to go is to simply eliminate government from defining marriage altogether and only have the state enforce what is a civil union contract.
Joe Diamond says
Marriage is………….a religious practice
a legally protected institution
a civil contract
a cultural tradition
a normal sexual outlet
Same sex marriage is………………a sexual deviation
another civil contract
a moral evil
an illegal act
a repressed cultural tradition
I think the real issue is who gets to decide? Participants? Society? Psychiatry? Clergy? Then the follow on question is who accepts the results and what about those who dissent?
So by all means let us now vote the issue.
Joe
Hugh Silcox says
Joe,
While I’ll grant your point on “deviation,” merely on the statisical evidence, and certainly and happily accept your acknowlegement that same-sex marrige is “another civil contract,” I categorically deny your other points.
You draw a disntinction between “normal” and same-sex coupling. “Normalness” is subjective, don’t you agree? What is “normal” for you may not be “normal” for me. Eating pig brains for breakfast may be “normal” for you, but is not for me. Making love to a man may not be “normal” for you, but certainly is for me. You — and your cultural tradition — do not define “normal” for me … or for anyone else, for that matter.
“Morality” centers on choice. Murder is “a moral evil.” Theft is a “moral evil.” Some would argue that abortion is a “moral evil.” Homosexuality is not “a moral evil,” because it does not entail choice (regardless of what you believe, homosexuality is not a choice, any more than your (and I’m presuming here) heterosexuaity. Same-sx marriage merely grants loving and committed couples the protection (and responsibilities) and societal sanction granted mixed-sex couples.
Homosexuality is not “an illegal act.” I refer you to the June 26, 2003, 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage is legal in ten countries world wide and in six of the United States. Thus far, the sky hasn’t fallen.
The fact that homossexuaity is “a repressed cultural tradition” hardly justifies that repression.
The answer to your closing question is clear: Under the legislation now before the General Assembly, clergy and religious communities will have the right to refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages. This is absolutely as it should be. That being said, though, each marriage performed in each State (including Maryland) now requires a license from the County/State. Each Courthouse has a “Marriage Bureau.” The State sanctions every marriage. Religious sanction is entirely optional. State sanction is not. For this reason, divorces are granted by the State (not by the Church). Civil marriage should be accesssible by any qualified couple, without regard for religious teaching/dogma.
As to your call for a popular vote on this issue: can you imagine the result, had school integration (or mixed-race marriage, for that matter) been put to a popular vote in the 1950s? By definition, the granting of rights to a minority should NEVER be subject to popular vote. The Consitution is designed to protect minorites from the “tyranny of the majority,” after all.
faith wilson says
Great answer to Joe, Hugh. His bigoted attitude reminds me of how many Americans felt towards mixed-race marriage (as you pointed out). How evil is bigotry? We can only hope that as in that case, someday (soon I hope) that the kind of narrow-minded bigotry expressed in that letter will be as passé and outrageous as racial bigotry is seen by any caring and open person. (I apologize for the run-on sentences, but intolerance freaks me out!)
Hugh Silcox says
Thanks, Faith. One can hope.