Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gay Marriage Debate Comes to Annapolis

[The following posting comes from Washington Post Staff Writer Lisa Rein, who covers Maryland politics.]

A new caucus is being born in the Maryland General Assembly: The Marriage Protection Caucus.

Opponents of gay marriage gathered in the House Office Building this morning to discuss strategy with a leader of the Alliance for Marriage, a Washington-based group that supports a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

With no action by Congress on this issue, the Alliance is now turning to state legislatures across the country to organize sympathetic lawmakers.

Why Maryland? A pending case in the state's highest court, which is being urged by nine same-sex couples and a gay man to toss out the state's gay marriage ban.

"Maryland is a big blip on the radar screen," Bob Adams of the Alliance told a group of nine lawmakers and aides. "It's very close to Washington. A decision will have national fallout."

The Court of Appeals could rule at any time, but lawmakers don't expect a decision during the current legislative session. Nevertheless, should the court could throw out Maryland's ban and leave it to the General Assembly to decide whether gay unions should be called marriage or be recognized by another name, opponents are preparing to fight.

"Absolutely, we're concerned about what the court might do," said Del. Gail H. Bates (R-Howard), who is organizing the new caucus. She said she believes that marriage "should never be ordained by man anyway" but by God.

Last year, New Jersey's highest court ordered the state legislature to create a law to provide the same full rights and benefits to same-sex couples as opposite-sex ones. It took effect in January.

One of those in attendance this morning was Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery), who is openly gay and wondered what efforts the caucus might make to strengthen marriage in general, whether gay or straight. "I do think there could be a value in using a caucus to promote family-friendly issues," she told the group.

But it was clear the caucus' priority is fighting gay marriage. "Let's call it for what it is,"Mizeur said afterwards. "The anti-gay caucus."

By  |  February 22, 2007; 12:36 PM ET
Categories:  General Assembly  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Capital Punishment at the Capitol
Next: Debating Bull Bits in Annapolis

Comments

As usual, Dwyer is lead sponsor on "Marriage Protection" with a bill in the House to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions. Co-sponsors listed probably gives a good picture on who has joined the MP Caucus:

Dwyer, Aumann, Bartlett, Bates, Beitzel, Boteler, Burns, Costa, Elliott, Elmore, Frank, George, Glassman, Haddaway, Jennings, J. King, Kipke, Krebs, McComas, McConkey, McDonough, Miller, Minnick, Myers, O'Donnell, Schuh, Shank, Shewell, Sossi, Stifler, Stocksdale, Stull, Walkup, Weir, and Wood.

Irrespective of what one's position is on this issue, I am wondering whatever happened to the campaign promises, like addressing electricity rates, GCIS funding for Thornton, etc.

Posted by: PGDem | February 22, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"Irrespective of what one's position is on this issue, I am wondering whatever happened to the campaign promises, like addressing electricity rates, GCIS funding for Thornton, etc."

I'm glad that you're beginning to see through the smoke screen.

Posted by: BG from PG | February 23, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to Del. Mizeur!

Posted by: K in SS | February 23, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

"Absolutely, we're concerned about what the court might do," said Del. Gail H. Bates (R-Howard), who is organizing the new caucus. She said she believes that marriage "should never be ordained by man anyway" but by God."

Alrighty then Mrs. Bates, so you'd be willing to give up the legal and financial protections and benefits bestowed upon you by the state for being married (with children, according to her msa.md.gov website)?

No?

Thought not.

Also, Myers, who is on the list above, wants to pass a law to ban "truck nutz."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201426.html

How quickly they forget the issues that actually impact the majority of their constituents (electricity regulation for one).

Posted by: M. from PG | February 24, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

What a shame that we even need a law to keep the misguided courts from redefining the institution of marriage. What's next? A law affirming that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear?

Posted by: Rufus | February 26, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

And from Germany, we have news of a brother and sister challenging the incest laws in that country (they already have 4 children together, 2 have disabilities).

Can anyone be surprised at this following that nation's decision to recognize same-sex couplings as "marriages?"

Stay tuned, it's going to get even worse.

Posted by: Rufus | February 27, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company