Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:49 PM ET, 02/19/2011

Md. GOP urges 'no' vote on same-sex marriage

By John Wagner

Thumbnail image for Mooney mug.jpgThe Maryland Republican Party has stepped up its lobbying efforts on the biggest social issue of the legislative session -- same-sex marriage -- as the Senate prepares to begin debate next week.

In an "action alert" emailed Saturday to party members, state GOP Chairman Alex X. Mooney lists the names and numbers of nine senators he suggests are key to whether Maryland legalizes marriages between gay couples.

"There is still time to put pressure on your state senator, but we must act now," Mooney, a former state senator from Frederick County, says in the email. "It is urgent that you contact your state senator immediately to tell them to vote no on the assault on traditional marriage."

When Mooney was elected GOP chairman in December, he told party activists that he planned to weigh in on social issues as well as fiscal issues -- a path some more moderate members of the party questioned.

All nine senators listed in Mooney's email are Democrats. Absent from the list is Sen. Allan H. Kittleman (R-Howard), the only Republican in the chamber who has voiced support for the legislation.

Of the nine senators, six have publicly voiced support for the bill. Another -- Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore) -- has said she is willing to be the deciding vote in favor of the bill but will not vote for the bill if she believes it will fail.

The only senator on the list who has said nothing publicly about his intentions is Sen. John C. Astle (D-Anne Arundel). The email also targets Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), who has said he will vote against the legislation.

The final vote on the bill is expected to be very close. As of this week, a bare majority of 24 senators had pledged support for the bill -- 25 if Conway is counted.

The text of Mooney's email is below.

Dear Fellow Republican,

Help us take a stand in defense of traditional marriage. A few key state Senators will soon decide whether or not the Maryland Senate will change the law to redefine marriage. Our state's long standing tradition of promoting marriage as between one man and one woman will be drastically altered to legally define marriage as between two men or two women. There is still time to put pressure on your state Senator but we must act now.

It is urgent that you contact your state Senator immediately to tell them to vote no on the assault on traditional marriage. It is especially important that you contact these Senators if you live in their district or have someone who does contact them.

Conway, Joan Carter, District 43 - Baltimore
(410) 841-3145, (301) 858-3145
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3145 (toll free)

Astle, John C., District 30 - Anne Arundel
(410) 841-3578, (301) 858-3578
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3578 (toll free)

James Rosapepe, District 21 - Prince George's
(410) 841-3141, (301) 858-3141
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3141 (toll free)

Young, Ronald N., District 3 - Frederick
(410) 841-3575, (301) 858-3575
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3575 (toll free)

Miller, Thomas V. Mike, Jr., District 27 - Calvert/Prince Georges
(410) 841-3700, (301) 858-3700
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3700 (toll free)

Brochin, James, District 42 - Baltimore
(410) 841-3648, (301) 858-3648
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3648 (toll free)

Klausmeier, Katherine A., District 8 - Baltimore
(410) 841-3620, (301) 858-3620
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3620 (toll free)

Kasemeyer, Edward J., District 12 - Howard/Baltimore
(410) 841-3653, (301) 858-3653
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3653 (toll free)

Robey, James N., District 13 - Howard
(410) 841-3572, (301) 858-3572
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3572 (toll free)

Find contact information for other state Senators by clicking here.


Chairman Alex X. Mooney
Maryland Republican Party

By John Wagner  | February 19, 2011; 3:49 PM ET
Categories:  General Assembly, John Wagner, Republican Party, Same-Sex Marriage  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: O'Malley takes aim at Florida's Gov. Scott
Next: Where they stand:
The Maryland Senate on same-sex marriage


Mooney states, "Help us take a stand in defense of traditional marriage." Isn't it terribly dishonest to say " traditional marriage" is being harmed in any way. The Prop 8 trial could not produce one strand of evidence to support that statement, Mr. Mooney we call on you to end the lies.

Posted by: bobbarnes | February 19, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Sensible people will not be swept along by absurd new ideological promotion of 'same-sex marriage'.

The State, through the law, has a particular interest in guaranteeing the uniqueness of marriage as an institution that provides social coherence, security and continuity for each new generation of children.

Professor Leon Kass, one of the world’s leading authorities on the natural and sociological anthropology of sexual reproduction, discerns that human societies virtually everywhere have structured child-rearing responsibilities and systems of identity and relationship on the bases of the deep natural facts of begetting. "The mysterious yet ubiquitous love of one's own is everywhere culturally exploited to make sure that children are not just produced but cared for and to create for everyone clear ties of meaning, belonging and obligation." Such naturally rooted social practices, he says, must not be treated as mere cultural constructs that we can alter with little human cost.

Regrettably, clever propaganda programmes mounted over two decades may have produced opinion polls that favour 'same-sex marriage'. But propaganda, however successful, is no basis for changing marriage laws that protect social coherence through responsible procreation, and ensure 'as far as possible, a child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents'(i.e. by both parents--not just the maternal parent and her lesbian partner, or the paternal parent and his homosexual partner).

It is rational thought and commonsense logic, not homophobia, that requires reasonable people to recognize that 'same-sex marriage' must remain a hollow concept, an elaborate pretence at parity belied by nature itself.

Posted by: ritaJ2 | February 19, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The marriage police have spoken.
Hey guys it's the 21st century, and in America, marriage is civil and contractual. Licenses come from city halls not church halls...**

Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the Peace,
Washington Green, CT USA

**If you want to add your religion, or gods, so be it...

I'm from New England, the land of the Puritans....who grew up. We passed a civil union law in 2005, and a marriage equality law in 2008...


Posted by: cornetmustich | February 19, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Every century has its complement of foolish policies.

There really is no virtue in tolerating the mischievous fiction of 'marriage equality'.

As with the Emperor's New Clothes, the hoax involving same-sex 'marriage' is just plain silly.

Already many begin to see that same-sex 'marriage equality' is a scam masquerading as a correction for alleged 'discrimination'.

There is no discrimination here, just common sense.

Sooner or later, the crowds will see through the hoax and call out the truth.

Posted by: ritaJ2 | February 19, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The marriage police have spoken again...

Luckily, it's a kids world and the old dudes will fade away...

Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT

Posted by: cornetmustich | February 19, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow RitaJ2...are you always so Ignorant? I assume you are a woman?
So by your logic back in 1920...MEN and clergy who argued AGAINST women HAVING a RIGHT to Vote should have stood? I mean, from your perspective...society needs -certain- rules to (run smoothly)..cause its the way its always been..right? Isn't that what you're saying?
Well dear...society EVOLVES...just like YOU having the RIGHT to VOTE was Proposterious, never to IT would Cause Society's Downfall 92yrs ago....Please Evolve...its pathetic to read such ignorance coming from a woman who has ZERO clue about american / women's history!

Posted by: rextrek1 | February 19, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

With CT being in the 21st century, I have married couples, who have been together for 20, 30 and 45 years, and they come here from all across the country

CT does most of New England and IA too..

Cheers, Joe Mustich,
CT Justice of the Peace

Posted by: cornetmustich | February 19, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Go GOP stick to your principles. Gay marriage is just wrong. The state has far bigger problems to worry about.

Posted by: VikingRider | February 19, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Homophobia is intolerance which benefits no one. Same-sex marriage is a right. Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. The objective of marriage is to be with someone with whom commitment allows for. I want Maryland's legislature to pass a bill which would recognize same-sex marriages performed in the state and performed elsewhere this year. Although the Attorney General ruled correctly on same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, the proposed same-sex marriage bill would strengthen his opinion. Alex X. Mooney is a homophobe. It's good that Allan H. Kittleman supports the right of same-sex marriage. Maryland is a Democratic Central Eastern state so the state shouldn't be held back by intolerant legislators. I live in the part of Virginia that is part of Washington, D.C. metropolitan area so I support the tolerant legislators across the Potomac river.

Posted by: LibertyForAll | February 19, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

@ ritaJ2: Same-sex marriage will NOT alter opposite-sex marriage at all. Straight men will still be able to marry straight women, and have children if they so desire. In fact, that's what's happening in all the states that have marriage equality right now. Straight couples are still getting married and starting families. The only difference is that gay couples are able to do that too.

As for the false claim that traditional marriage promotes responsible procreation: How EXACTLY does preventing gay couples from getting married help a straight couple have sex more responsibly? It's a ludicrous statement that makes little to no sense. It is virtually impossible for a gay couple to have any effect on a straight couple's marriage or sex life. None.

Here's a news bulletin: PROCREATION IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO GET MARRIED. Otherwise, senior citizens and infertile couples wouldn't be permitted to marry.

Posted by: obtusegoose | February 19, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

The marriage police have spoken again...

Luckily, it's a kids world and the old dudes will fade away...

Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT
Why do you homos like saying DUMB stuff like that, you mean the kids that bully your kind in school, leading your kind to SUICIDE, will actually grow up to suddenly embrace your UN-NATURAL, ABNORMAL,DEPRAVED, DEBAUCHED, PROFANE, LIFESTYLE CHOICE?? WOW, NOT ONLY ARE YOUR BRAINS SCRAMBLED WHEN IT COMES TO NATURAL AND NORMAL SEXUALITY, YOUR BRAINS ARE SCRAMBLED ALL AROUND!!

Posted by: nakiberu | February 20, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

@ nakiberu - you are such a piece of bigoted scum. Why don't YOU do society a favor and commit SUICIDE and STOP spreading your FILTHY, ABNORMAL, DISGUSTING, AND IMMORAL PREJUDICE AND HATRED OF OTHERS?

Homophobes like you provide no value to society and actually threaten civility and true American values like liberty and justice in our culture.

I would state that YOUR BRAINS ARE SCRAMBLED, however, YOU HAVE NO BRAINS since you are a complete idiot!

Posted by: Anthony86 | February 20, 2011 3:46 AM | Report abuse

@ VikingRider - You state "gay marriage is just wrong" and then provide no evidence or facts as to why.

I can list dozens of reasons why blatant stupidity and homophobia are wrong; two things which you spread and espouse.

I can also list dozens of reasons why gay and lesbians couples should have their fundamental right to marry in the state of Maryland.

So YOU are wrong, not marriage equality.

Posted by: Anthony86 | February 20, 2011 3:52 AM | Report abuse

Alex X. Mooney is a liar!

He blatantly lies when he states: “altered to legally define marriage as between two men or two women” < That is false and a scare tactic. Gay and lesbians couples just want to be married too, not make marriage solely for themselves.

Alex X. Mooney is a liar and a very immoral person.

Marriage equality means just that = EQUALITY in marriage.

Men and women would still be able to get married if the law is passed, it is just that same-sex couples would be able to get married too.

Posted by: Anthony86 | February 20, 2011 3:58 AM | Report abuse

The only "straight" men who get sooooo concerned about same sex marriage are not straight (e.g., Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, George Rekers, etc., etc.).

Gay and lesbian Americans pay the same taxes and should have the same basic civil rights as their fellow Americans. If you don't believe this, then you should read the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Posted by: homer4 | February 20, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

WOW . . . . in the disguise of an opinion piece, or some faux reporting, WaPo publishes the anti-gay, Christo-facist, bigoted call-to-hate.

Could WaPo be anymore blatant in their attempt to slant the news and influence legislation.

WaPo is becoming the Faux News of the print media.

Posted by: Continuum | February 20, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

WOW . . . . in the disguise of an opinion piece, or some faux reporting, WaPo publishes the anti-gay, Christo-facist, bigoted call-to-hate.

Could WaPo be anymore blatant in their attempt to slant the news and influence legislation.

WaPo is becoming the Faux News of the print media.

Posted by: Oops1 | February 20, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm just baffled. I really am. :P I came across this article while doing some research about same-sex marriage and I couldn't believe it. America should stop spreading that it's 'the land of freedom', because as long as this debate is still going on, it's total bullshit.

In Belgium, every political party we have (no matter how extreme) is pro-gay marriage. It's legal here, and it has been since 2003. There was no impact whatsoever on straight couples, the only difference is that now, gay people have the chance to have the same rights than straight couples with the person whom they love, and care for equally as much as straight couples.

Love is love, people. Gay people feel the same butterflies in their stomachs when they love someone, feel the same after a break-up. When are people going to realize this? Look at Belgium and just europe in general. We're doing pretty well, right?

Posted by: bert_1991 | February 20, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

As most of you reading this know, gay marriage is legal in 5 U.S. states + Wash. D.C. Also in 11 countries around the world.

Those opposed to same gender marriage could help their cause by identifying how allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will hurt their community and country. I live in Mexico. There is a gay couple in my community who have been legally married for about 3 years. I have looked for ways their marriage may have affected their neighborhood, city and/or country in an adverse way, but frankly, haven't discovered one yet. What I have discovered is that this couple loves each other very much. They have many friends. I have looked for a problem, but found none. I believe the same has been true in all countries where gay marriage is legal as well as the 5 U.S. states that have done so. It is incumbent upon those opposed to gay marriage to document in detail how people have been aversely affected by the gay marriages around them. If they can't, the only reason for opposition is prejudice - pure and simple.

Posted by: rbstores | February 20, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

It hurts traditional marriage so badly that no one's ever been able to say how.

Posted by: jack824 | February 20, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

The GOP needs to grow up and join the 21st century. If you don't like Maryland's decision, move to a state that lives in the 18th century. How does GOP adultery fit into traditional marriage?

Posted by: jckdoors | February 21, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

In Maryland, there are over 330 separate rights that are granted to couples when they marry. Even if they were to establish a civil union that currently meets all of those current rights, there is no way to guarantee that in the future, additional rights will be granted to marriage, but not to civil unions, thereby reinstituting the two-tier system of benefits. There is no legal way to bind these terms together to mandate that all future changes to one institution must be made to the other institution. So, for all tax paying constituents of the state of Maryland to be equal, they must all be granted the right to this institution.

Considering how long my senator, Jim Rosapepe, procastinated in making a decision (last Friday), and considering that he received a lot of support from within his constituency to convince him to support the bill, it is unlikely that messages from non-constituents are going to persuade him to change his stance. I made the effort to go out to one of his meet-and-greet, and informed him that my wife and I, long time constituents, were supportive of same sex marriage and wanted him to vote for it. I, for one, applaud him for doing the right thing.

Another side benefit of granted same sex marriage is that the marriage industry in MD will get a boost (it's happened in each of the other jurisdictions that passed this) and that will increase tax revenue without having to increase taxes. Two birds with one stone.

Posted by: DadWannaBe | February 21, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

It hurts traditional marriage so badly that no one's ever been able to say how.

Posted by: jack824 | February 20, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

It's wasn't clear how no fault divorce would affect tradional marriage.

It wasn't clear how a general social acceptance of out of wedlock births would affect marriage.

It's not clear how a general social acceptance of infidelity in the media would affect traditional marriage.

It's not clear how a general acceptance of living together outside of marriage would affect marriage.

Now, it's really not clear how changing the very definition of marriage will affect marriage.

Now a "right" to same sex marriage is promulgated as a "civil right", when such a right has never existed before in Western or American law.

Now, I'm not even sure what we're really talking about anymore....

Posted by: captn_ahab | February 21, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I do want to point out that Mr. Sulu of star trek got married. Tons of same sex people married in Massachusetts and the world still turns. See nothing changed. The Sky did not fall. Was Mr. Alex worried that his mommy and daddy were splitting up because Mr. Sulu married his husband? Was he worried that his Grams were going to leave Gramps after 50 years of marriage for a perky lesbian? Or Grapms was really a cougar daddy? When faced with hard facts, I really don’t think Mr. Alex has anything to worry about. I think Mr. Dan Savage put it Best : Striking down an insulting, discriminatory, unconstitutional law will not, as Mr. Santorum (or Mr. Alex) fears, open the doors to incest, adultery, bigamy, and bestiality. Straight people blew those doors off their hinges long, long ago (see Wiki on Santorum Ref. #8). Though Mr. Savage was not talking about the heterosexual’s marriage only laws, I think his words can still be applied to those laws that prevent GLBTQ from marrying who they want to. I think Mr. Alex X. Mooney has a little Santorum on his lip. He might want to clean it off.

Posted by: DW991 | February 21, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

If this bill doesn't pass then that will only mean that gay marriage and gay rights issues will remain in the forefront of the agenda as long as we gays and lesbians don't get equal civil rights and until we stop being treated like 2nd rate citizens. This is not something trivial: it's to make sure our relationships are recognized, our unions protected, our kids, our friends and our families are not harmed. This is not a fight anti-equality groups can even DREAM to win.

It's sad to see the GOP once again living up to its reputation of hatred, discrimination and intolerance, especially when it comes to gay rights. But there is nothing to be gained by denying gays and lesbians equal benefits from marriage.

The only thing the GOP will insure is that the LGBT community, and its allies, will be even more mobilized as regard the blatant and disgusting denial of rights occuring at various backward places in the US right now. Maryland can chose: it can be in the forefront of history, or those seeking to deny marriage to gays and lesbians can chose to end up being viewed like the new KKK. But in any case, this will not be the end of the fight for marriage equality and for equal and just treatment for ALL.

And I thought that the GOP was supposed to fix the economy...

Posted by: Skulander | February 21, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

And I must confess that I've never quite understood the ultra-right Christians' obsession in denying civil rights or just plain rights taken for granted by most Americans to those individuals they hate. The debate on gay marriage has uncovered deep-seated homophobia in this country and it's disgusting.

Posted by: Skulander | February 21, 2011 11:28 PM | Report abuse

@Skulander I would like to respond to your comments. I know the way we got to African American civil rights is not totally reflective of gay rights. But I would like to point out that the issues surrounding these rights in a way are no different than gay rights. Before the African Americans get upset with this comparison”: First, what I am pointing out is the 13th amendment was finely fully ratified in 1995 by the last holdout state, as in our lifetime. Second, there was a comment in either the Time Magazine or News Week back when the 13th amendment was finely fully ratified in 1995, the reason why they were holding out was because they were hoping to get their saves back… Please hold that thought for a second. Second, it was pointed out that this last state’s legislation was controlled by the Southern Baptist. HELLO! The year was not 1890. We are talking about people and a state in our lifetime in 1995. And there were people hoping to own African Americans in our life time!?! That has to say something about our religious institutions and our politics. What is even more flabbergasting, is how many white people don’t know when the 13th amendment was finely fully ratified. They don’t have even a clue. And most of them haven’t a clue as to why this right is so important. Oh you might understand why that is important, but the anti-intellectual thinking going on in our country right now only reflects how backwards we have become. As disgusting as it sounds, most white people see civil rights as not their problem. Let’s not get into how people in Minnesota told pollsters they were not ready for a Black President right now in our last election ( as reported by Bill Maher on HBO). Now you’re going to spring on them gay rights and expect them to rap their little minds around that?

Posted by: DW991 | February 22, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Mooney is an idiot, plain and simple.
He clearly wasn't even up to date with his plea for help as most of the senators on that list are now FOR the bill. The GOP sure got themselves a winner when they picked him to run things.

As to RitaJ2 ( Rita Joseph), you all have to excuse her. She is from a third world country with a poor educational system that still believes in the most superstitious aspects of Christianity while still adhering to some aspects of voodoo. What can you expect?

Posted by: downwind1 | February 22, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the day the institution of Marriage and it's traditions are a lot older than any US legislative body. What the LBGT community probably needs is fair and equal treatment. By pushing for marriage, they only hurt themselves in the long run because no matter what the legislature gives them, they are not getting the same "marriage" my wife and I have because mainstream shurches will not condone it.

The Maryland legislature is simply handing out a freebee because the LGBT lobby is effective. I think the voters would turn in down in a referendum, but ultimately I do not care. Darwin will always keep this group as a minority - Thankfully.

Posted by: swan_502 | February 22, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company