The Spy sat down with Del. Jay Jacobs, R-Kent, for a legislative wrap-up of key bills that moved through the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly.
One of the most hotly debated bills this year was same-sex marriage, which brought national attention to Gov. Martin O’Malley when Maryland became the eighth state in the US to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The bill pit liberal Democrats against other Democrats who aligned with Republican lawmakers to oppose the bill based on religious and historical precedent.
The law is on hold awaiting the outcome of a referendum battle, which many lawmakers agreed to in exchange for supporting the bill. If the referendum fails, the law will take effect in January of 2013.
An unlikely alliance of African-American and conservative religious leaders have formed the Maryland Marriage Alliance–to strike down the law in the general election this fall.
Jacobs believes that conventional marriage is for opposite sex couples, but he supported a civil union amendment that was shot down on the House floor.
He also lamented that the same-sex marriage bill took too much attention and time away from the ailing economy, which he said should have been the first priority of the legislature this year.
The interview was broken up into environmental, social, and fiscal issues. Today’s clip focuses on the same-sex marriage bill, which squeaked through the legislature by the narrowest vote of any bill this year, 72-67.
Hugh Silcox says
Delegate Jacobs and his fellow Republicans could have saved a lot of time during the session by acknowledging the necessity of the Bill and not raising irrelevant and insensitive objections, based either on willful misunderstanding or cynical pandering. The marriage-equality legislation has absolutely no bearing on religion (as it deals only with civil marriage and places no obligation on religious communities ) or the “sanctity” of marriage (as it has no effect on existing marriages) … and Delegate Jacobs knows this. Examined rationally and fairly, this legislation could have (and should have) been dealt with expeditiously. Any objection, and the time expended in addressing those objections, consumed time that, yes, could have been applied elsewhere. On the other hand, when is an issue of civil rights more conveniently dealt with than when that issue presents itself?
Carla Massoni says
Budgets come and go. Civil rights for all Marylanders is the most important issue facing our citizens. Churches are free to marry whom they will under their own roof – but I want my State and my country to recognize the rights of all. Civil unions are just a euphemism for “separate but equal” – equal is equal – and equal rights under the law should be the same for all of us. I admire Delegate Jacobs and I hope his views will evolve over time. I appreciate his efforts and applaud his hard work for our region. But this is not a pesky little issue – it is the issue.
Joan Cramer says
It is so hard to be kind in response to such an irrational interview. Same-sex marriage should not have taken up “half the session,” and it did so only because there are still some people living on the wrong side of history and adhering to a religion-based intolerance, the historic legacy of which includes Slavery, the Spanish Inquisition and the War in Bosnia. My only question for these sad souls who say marriage should be between a man and a woman is: “Why?” It’s such a childish argument. They might as well say, “Because I said so.” It was once also forbidden to marry someone of another race. Love is love. And if the Christians in this country truly believed that God is love, then they would easily see that God is part of and blesses every union of two people who love and want to make a family with one another.
Bob says
Welcome to the 21st century, Jacobs! This is a civil rights issue.How can you say you support civil unions and not same-sex marriage?
Where…and why…do you draw the line? You are correct in that much time was wasted on this issue, however.
Frank Gerber says
Jay,
first of all, thank you for your service to our county and state. I am grateful that there are folks like you who take up challenge of public service, and dealing with all the complexities of running a civalized society. The video presented here has left me wondering what you believe the difference between civil union and marriage is ? If you believe there are more important issues to address than “this social issue”, then why are you increasing the complexity by drawing a distinction between civil union , which you support, and gay marriage, which you do not ? Why not just pass the thing and move on to “the important issues” ? This bill will make the lives of thousands of marylanders better, and make life worse for no one. What’s so complex about that ?
Jack Offett says
The Jay mindset affects far more than just gays getting married . . . almost. It is like the deployment of “white only” and “colored” water fountains . . . yes you can drink Mr. African American, but not cold water.
Ask him about decriminalization of marijuana and bringing to end the systematic destruction of the future economic lives of so many young Kent Countians and Americans across the country. It cannot be to keep police employed . . . we need their assistance and service regardless. There is a constant need in America to single out, deny destroy, or simply confiscate.
It is the small-vision thinker’s disease and affects the lowest economically to the most successful financially. Before I die, I would like to live in a country where we don’t destroy our young (whether at conception or at 18), every American who is fit for work is working, we are allowed to enjoy relationships and commitments with the one’s we love, and we end the need to ask politicians and other little minded people for permission to breath.
Alex Smolens says
There’s a delightfully simple way to deal with this. Let anyone who wants to get hitched at the courthouse, with all the fanfare and legal rights. Just like if you got “married” now. Call heterosexual and homosexual courthouse marriages civil unions. There’s the equality everyone wants. Let religious institutions “marry” people. Don’t let the government regulate who they can can’t marry. Wow, that was easy.
I got “married” at the court house. I don’t care what people call it. There’s a ring on both of our fingers, and I love my wife.
Hugh Silcox says
That’s essentially what we have now, with two important differences: the sign outside the office in the Court House says something like “Marriage Bureau.” and … same-sex couples are barred entry. Churches are jealous of the term, “marriage,” but you are correct. What the church offers is “holy matrimony,” a sacrament — meaningful to the believer, irrelevant to the non-believer– which is entirely optional. The trip to the Court House is *not* optional. That is why, in lieu of the approach you prescribe, access to *civil marriage* by any couple prepared to meet the legal and financial obligations (religious obligations again being irrelevant) it entails, is the objective. This is also why religious objections to the current legislation are specious and obnoxious. Oh … and by the way … love, commitment, and that ring are dispensed by neither the church nor the Court House!
Keith Thompson says
Where the religious argument comes into play is the term “marriage” which is a term with a religious origin. By having the government defining the term “marriage”, it is effectively getting involved in what is a traditionally a religious matter. I agree that if government is going to make “marriage” a legal matter, then individual civil rights trumps religious freedom here, but my question here is why are we having the government defining what a marriage is? Shouldn’t the government’s role be to uphold the validity of a contract entered upon by a couple? A government definition of marriage is irrelevant unless the goal is to change a religious practice. Is changing religious practice a proper role of government? That’s the unspoken part of this debate.
Keith Thompson says
The problem I see is that you have the government defining a term, “marriage” which largely has a religious component. I think what Alex is saying here is that if you simply separate state and marriage, you eliminate the problem. What you’re left with is the state recognizing what is essentially a legal contract between two people and what you call that contract would be entirely up to the couple. As long as you have govternment defining the term marriage, I feel that civil rights trumps religious concerns and that same sex marriages must be allowed; however, I think having the government defining the term is entirely irrelevant to the legal process. To me, the danger is that if you give the state the power to define the parameters of a marriage; you not only give the state the power to grant you those rights, you also give the state the power to take away those rights. Keep in mind, when the state first got involved in defining marriage, the state was actively prohibiting interracial couples from getting married.
Hugh Silcox says
And I guess what I am saying is that, while I agree with Alex’s (and your) observations, the changes you suggest are best delayed until equal access to civil marriage — as it is currently defined by the State — is assured. Otherwise this semantic (and by terming it thus, I don’t mean to dismiss its validity) becomes a distraction, rather than the immediate solution that is required. Let’s fix the inequity in the system as it now exists…then we can work together to truly and correctly separate “civil union” from ” holy matrimony.”
Keith Thompson says
True it’s a semantic argument, but I think what this illustrates to me is that the argument as currently defined (and as currently legally practiced) pits two competing sets of rights against one another….civil rights vs. freedom of religion. As long as the debate is defined by the government defining a specific term, especially defining the term in a different context than its historical origin, it creates a two-sided political argument where no compromise can be found. By attmpting to create a government solution to this problem, you create another problem.
The other thing here is, given the state’s history of not recognizing marital rights in the past (especially because the practice of states banning interracial marriage eventually overturned by the courts), I’m not sure that an advocate of same sex marriage should be comfortable in giving the state the power to define marriage. If the state can grant rights, it can also take those rights away.
Steve Payne says
“especially because the practice of states banning interracial marriage eventually overturned by the courts”
In the best named Supreme Court case of all time: Loving v. Virginia
And I’m sure that currently “Married” couples will never accept a Civil Union status.
J astrachan says
I cannot imagine allowing a majority to determine the rights of a minority in this society. Had civil rights gone to referandum in the south 50 years ago, whatbwould have been the results?
Keith Thompson says
It was the state defining the parameters of marriage during the Civil Rights era that forbade interracial marriages until such laws were overturned by the courts. It was around this time when the state really began getting into the business of defining marriage and the reason for such laws was to limit those who could be legally married.
Marge Fallaw says
I have yet to hear or read any convincing statement by anyone opposed to same-gender marriages about how such marriages would or could adversely affect his or her own heterosexual marriage, family, community, or good governance. Mostly the rationale seems to be simply “that’s not how it’s supposed to be,” a personal and/or religiously based opinion with no other basis. That’s weak and not a good reason to deny others their civil rights (and benefits that come with the right to marry, such as to file tax returns as a married couple, to be covered by a spouse’s medical insurance, to inherit according to laws pertaining to married couples, and so on). For a long time, marriage in the US has been basically a civil matter, though if some wish to make it a religious one as well, they’re welcome to do so, under the rules of whatever religious body they adhere to.