Senate passes same-sex marriage bill

Legislation expected in House today

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

ANNAPOLIS — In an expected vote, but one that still evoked strong emotions, senators Thursday evening passed legislation to allow gay couples to marry in Maryland.

The slim 25-21 margin had been anticipated for weeks, and opponents of the bill say they will work to bring the measure to referendum in the November 2012 election.

The House of Delegates began work on its version of the bill Friday, with the Judiciary Committee hearing testimony. Expectations as of press time were for the bill to pass committee Tuesday before hitting the House floor today. House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said debate will likely begin Thursday. A final vote could come as early as Friday.

As in the Senate, where all three Southern Maryland members voted nay, the bill will receive little support from the region's delegation in the House. Other than Del. Peter Murphy (D-Charles), who is among the bill's co-sponsors, every Southern Maryland delegate is expected to vote against passage.

Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs said she will work personally to collect the more than 55,000 signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot.

"As soon as we have the wording and the petitions available, I told my husband that we're not going on vacation until we get [the signatures] because I wouldn't feel right leaving for a vacation to Ocean City if we hadn't done our job," Jacobs (R-Harford, Cecil) said following the vote.

Jacobs said churches and national groups also will work to mobilize the referendum effort.

Richard S. Madaleno Jr., the only openly gay member of the Senate and a sponsor of the bill, said putting the same-sex marriage question to the electorate could deeply divide voters, similar to the long and emotional quest to give equal rights to blacks.

"You never want to put the rights of a minority group up for a vote," said Madaleno (D-Montgomery).

This version of the bill has been introduced since the 2008 session.

The 59 sponsors of the House bill need a dozen other members to get behind the measure to pass it, and Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he would sign the legislation if lawmakers OK the plan.

Murphy said he is supporting the bill for two reasons — expansion of civil rights and promotion of religious freedom. While the bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, it does not require churches to recognize such unions.

"To me, it's a bill about civil rights. This bill simply provides the same rights and privileges to all citizens," Murphy said, adding, "If the bill didn't honor that rich tradition of separation of church and state, I couldn't support it."

Murphy said his e-mails from constituents have been about "half-and-half" in support and opposition and feels his vote will speak for bill proponents in Charles County.

"I'm proud to be that voice," he said.

Unlike many legislators, Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles) does not have strong personal feelings towards the bill, but as of now he plans to vote against it after finding "very, very little support" in Charles County.

"I do believe that we're not elected into office because we're kings, but we're elected as representatives," Wilson said. "I think it would be very irresponsible for me to vote for the bill when the constituents do not support it unless if I can articulate a clear reason for me to support it."

Though he plans to vote no, Wilson has told colleagues that he is trying to keep an open mind and therefore expects to be on "the hot seat for the next few days." Last he heard, the bill was two votes shy of the number needed to pass, Wilson said.

"But it's not me they have to win over, it's my constituents," he added. "This is a job they should have been doing all summer."

For weeks advocates focused on winning over lawmakers in the Senate, assuming the bill would walk an easier path in the more-liberal House. But Minority Leader Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert, St. Mary's), a vocal opponent of the bill, thinks the vote will be closer than many have assumed.

"Right now conventional wisdom has been that it will be out of the House, but over the last week things have moved to the too-close-to-call category," O'Donnell said.

Del. Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery), sponsor of the House version, said he easily has the votes to pass the bill in that chamber.

"These are human beings," Barve said. "They love each other. They're committed to each other. They're not a threat to anybody."

Del. Mark Fisher (D-Calvert) feels differently.

"I think marriage is between one man and one woman," Fisher said. "Marriage is the glue that holds civil society together."

Fisher said he thinks his personal views on same-sex marriage are reflected in his district and that constituents knew where he stood on the issue before the 2010 election. He believes the state should be focusing on job creation rather than redefining marriage but expects the bill to pass before being voted down on the 2012 ballot.

"It will go to referendum and it will be defeated," Fisher said.

Passage would make Maryland the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Last year, an opinion by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) said Maryland would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C.

During Senate debate, opponents of the bill argued that government should not recognize relationships between gay couples, largely citing religious and moral beliefs that marriage is a legal relationship between a man and a woman.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Prince George's, Calvert) opposed the legislation, but voted to limit the debate.

"I didn't let it happen," he said. "I let the majority view prevail. I'm one of 47, I'm the elected leader, and they elect me to be fair."

Jacobs said she was prepared to filibuster as long as other senators would allow her to go on, pointing to a stack of papers from which to read on her desk.

Earlier in the day, she told the body that the civil purpose of marriage should be to produce children.

"Government has no compelling interest to regulate or recognize these relationships," Jacobs said. "Love between a man and a woman that may lead to children is the only love that government has a right to recognize, reason to recognize."

On Wednesday, opponents also attempted to add additional protections for people with religious opposition to same-sex marriage from having to officiate at the weddings or provide other services such as photography or catering, which sponsors of the bill believe already is covered within the legislation.

Amendments passed to change the name of the bill — the term "religious freedom" was removed from the title, so it's now called the Civil Marriage Protection Act — and to exempt fraternal organizations and other private groups from having to provide insurance to gay married couples.

Supporters argued that civil marriage for gay couples is a matter of equality.

"I'm going to respect that everyone of us is at least a human being, and if there's a problem with any aspect of the way any of us live our lives that is between us and our creator, and I am not the monitor of people's lives, and neither do I have the right to deny them rights that in no way infringe upon mine," said Sen. Delores G. Kelley (D-Baltimore).

sbreitenbach@gazette.net

jnewman@somdnews.com

Staff writer Alan Brody contributed to this report.