The following letter was sent to all members of the Maryland General Assembly:
Dear Delegate Michael G. Summers:
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO fully supports legislation to allow gay and lesbian couples the right to marry in Maryland.
Families, no matter their demographics, deserve the right to protect their family interests.
Without the freedom to marry, gay and lesbian couples do not receive the same recognition or protections for their families as other couples.
“Marriage” gives protections and recognition to everyone – in hospital emergency rooms, funeral homes, and when discussing benefits with employers; while “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” are not always recognized.
This is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue.
At one time, the State of Maryland refused to allow interracial marriage or to recognize interracial marriages from other states as “legal.” African Americans were treated as second-class citizens. Those restrictions are long gone. Yet we are still forcing the same second class status on gay and lesbian Marylanders by refusing their right to marry.
It’s time to let our prejudices go. I urge you to support full equality for Maryland’s lesbian and gay couples.
Sincerely,
Gino Renne
President
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Local 1994 MCGEO for Marriage Equality
Friday, July 22, 2011
Governor to Sponsor Marriage Equality Legislation
Great news from Annapolis today. The Baltimore Sun reports:
Standing with House and Senate supporters, Gov. Martin O'Malley announced this afternoon that he will lead the charge for gay marriage in Maryland and put his name on a bill that allows same-sex couples to wed.This is very good news on a number of fronts:
"Marylanders of all walks of life want their children to live in a loving, stable, committed home protected under the law," O'Malley said. He said it would be one of "a small handful" of legislative priorities.
. . .
O'Malley tasked his top lobbyist, Joseph C. Bryce, with spearheading the effort to move the bill in 2012. Bryce, a well respected Annapolis aide, will coordinate the new Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition and develop a strategy to garner additional votes.
The Governor taking a leadership role and making this one of his priorities should be a major boost to passing the bill. As I think everyone learned from the slots battle, Gov. O'Malley can be extremely effective at getting his priorities through the General Assembly. His leadership and the very fact of it will carry real weight in the House and the Senate.
Joe Bryce is one of the most experienced people in Annapolis. Having him designated by the governor to coordinate the coalition is an enormous boost for the effort to pass marriage equality. I also view it as a real sign of the Governor's genuine commitment.
In short, today was a very big day for supporters of equality in Maryland. Thanks, Governor.
Friday, March 18, 2011
ABC-Post Poll Reports Majority Support for Marriage Equality Nationally
The best summary of the polls is at ABC News. The headline figure is that supporters outnumber opponents by 53 percent to 44 percent. Support has grown particularly sharply "among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men." The poll also found support identical among whites and racial minority groups. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Vice President Joe Biden called marriage equality "inevitable."
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Jonathan Capehart Rips Sam Arora and Tiffany Alston
His must read column in the Washington Post. Capehart already went after Del. Arora earlier. Above is the same YouTube video of Rep. John Lewis, civil rights leader and icon, he uses in his post.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Del. Anne Kaiser's Floor Speech for Marriage Equality
Mr. Speaker-
It will come as no surprise to you that I support this bill -- and I do so unequivocally, unabashedly. My green vote today is a vote for equality and equal protection under the law. It is a vote against bigotry. Against fear. It is a vote in favor of love and stability.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker -- members of this body believe that what I want -- and what thousands of other Americans want, which is to marry the person they love -- is somehow immoral or against god. Strong religious beliefs seem to be a main theme in the opposition.
Throughout this entire marriage equality debate, I have asked countless people to share with me a single legal argument against marriage equality. There are none.
Mr. Speaker -- some people who oppose this bill have even gone as far to say that if this bill passes -- I might someday be allowed to marry a toaster… a robot… or even a household pet. These arguments have sickened me -- and sadden me -- and have been so offensive I can barely stand it. As if my marriage to my girlfriend might bring about some dramatic end to civilization as we know it.
Mr. Speaker -- I want something so very simple. And so does my girlfriend of eight years. We want to be married. We want our relationship to be formally recognized by the state. We want all the rights and privileges that come along with marriage. And, we want to get married in Maryland -- the state where we have made our lives together and where I have spent my entire life.
I want to get married during my parent’s lifetime. My mother is 75. My father is 78. Please don’t tell my mother I “outted” her age on the House floor. My mother -- a mother of a Jewish lesbian -- is just like your mother. She doesn’t like her age being bandied about publicly. And I can assure you that she didn’t bank on having a lesbian daughter. But she has one. And even though she is 75 years old -- born only 15 years after women in our country earned the right to vote -- she too stands for equality.
She did what so many mothers do when she heard her daughter was gay. She cried at first and then she told me she loved me. And then she told me she loved me again. And then she made me lunch. Those Jewish mothers can be a little repetitive, especially when they are telling you they love you. But over time she understood that I deserve the same rights, the same equal protection as any other person. I deserve to marry the person I love.
I come from a family that values marriage. And like me and many of you, my mother doesn’t understand how my marriage to my girlfriend would in any way weaken or make less meaningful her marriage to my father. They have been married for over 50 years. My mother’s parents were married for 67 years. My aunt was married for 55 years. I come from a family that values marriage.
Mr. Speaker -- it’s obvious to me that this is an issue that has divided this house along party lines, and in some ways, along racial lines as well as religious lines. For at least five percent of the members of this body -- this is a deeply personal issue. For so many more, who have gay or lesbian relatives or friends -- it is also a deeply personal and important vote today.
With the push of our button today, we have the ability to ensure equality to thousands of Marylanders -- to confer more than 400 benefits and legal protections that come with marriage. We have the opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of our country that Maryland stands for equality. We have the chance to put fear and hatred in its place. We have the chance to endorse love.
I am voting green today, Mr. Speaker. Because I just don’t understand why anyone in this body would oppose the economic benefits that would come to our state if this marriage bill passes. I am voting green today because there is no legal argument that the opposition has. I am voting green today because I want a family that is recognized under the law.
I cast my green vote not only for myself, not only for my constituents, not only for my Mother and Father -- but for all Marylanders who stand for equality. I urge every member who believes that he or she is opposed to this legislation, ask yourself this simple question: what would be so horribly detrimental if the lady from Montgomery County could marry her partner? What would be so detrimental if the lady from Baltimore City could marry her partner? Or the gentleman from Southern Maryland could marry his partner?
Whatever happens today, I will still love my girlfriend. She will still love me. Our parents and friends will still love us.
I urge the body to vote in favor of equality, civil rights, equal protection and love.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
What Happened?
Live Blogging the DebateI plan to share my thoughts about the outcome of yesterday's debate more fully at a later time. For now, I just wanted to respond to my queries about the motion to recommit the marriage equality bill to committee.
The House of Delegates agreed on a unanimous voice vote to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee. This decision effectively kills the bill for the year. Many people naturally wonder why no vote was taken after all of the hard work that was done to advance the bill by so many people inside and outside of the legislature. Proponents agreed to this because they fell a few votes short of those needed to pass the bill on the floor of the House.
The argument for a vote is clear. People have a right to know where their legislators stand on such an important issue. Regardless of the outcome, it would have been the democratic process in action with delegates reflecting the will of their constituents and acting as our representatives.
On the other hand, proponents would have lost by a greater number than the closeness of the unofficial count because some "yes" votes would have become "no" votes. Legislators in marginal districts who might have been willing to stick their necks out to pass a meaningful piece of legislation would not do so if the legislation was going to fail.
Additionally, going forward, it is a lot harder to convert the votes of people who have cast a vote on the floor against marriage than it is to gain the votes of the undecided or who have said they oppose it but have yet to cast an actual vote on the topic. The thought behind not holding a vote is that it makes it easier to bring it up again next year and also does not demoralize opponents in other states. That was the thinking behind the decision to recommit.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
How Did the Delegates Vote? Part Four
This is part four (and the final post) in a series about how delegates voted yesterday on amendments to the marriage equality bill. See the first post for information about the content of the amendments. This post looks at how Democrats from Baltimore County and Baltimore City voted.
Baltimore City
Fourteen of the 18 delegates voted nay on all amendments. Del. Rosenberg (41) voted nay on all amendments except he didn't vote on the Braveboy referendum amendment. Del. Conaway (40) voted nay on three of the amendments except that he voted yea on the Braveboy amendment. Del. Carter (41) voted nay on two amendments, yea on the Braveboy amendment, and didn't vote on the Serafini amendment to change the title of the bill. Del. Oaks (41) voted yea on the Braveboy and Serafini amendments; he voted nay on the Afzali amendment on teaching about homosexuality and the Donoghue amendment about the rights of adoption agencies to discriminate.
Baltimore County
Six of the 13 Baltimore County Democrats voted against all four amendments: Dels. Jones (10), Nathan-Pulliam (10), Cardin (11), Morhaim (11), Stein (11), and Lafferty (42). Three voted for all four amendments: Dels. Minnick (6), Weir (6), and Burns (10).
Del. Olszewski (6) voted for the Afzali and Donoghue amendments about the rights of adoption agencies to discriminate but against the Braveboy and Serafini amendments. Del. DeBoy (12A) voted nay on the Afzali and Braveboy amendments, and yea on the Donoghue and Serafini amendments.
Del. Bromwell (8) voted against three of the amendments but for the Donoghue amendment. Del. Malone (12A) also voted against three of the amendments but didn't vote on the Braveboy amendment.
How Did the Delegates Vote? Part Three
This is part three in a series of posts about how delegates voted yesterday on amendments to the marriage equality bill. See the first post for information about the content of the amendments. This post looks at how Democrats from counties other than the four most populous (Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore City and County) voted.
Dels. Kelly (1B, Allegany) and Donoghue (2C, Washington), the only Democrats from Western Maryland, voted for all the amendments. Del. James (34A, Harford), the only Democrat from Harford, voted for all of the amendments
Southern Maryland Democrats tended to oppose the amendments. Dels. Jameson (28, Charles), and Murphy (28, Charles) voted against all of them. Dels. Wilson (28, Charles), and Bohanan (St. Mary's) voted against three of the amendments but for the convoluted Braveboy referendum amendment. However, Del. Wood (29A, Charles and St. Mary's) voted for all of the amendments.
Eastern Shore Democrats--Rudolph (34B), Cane (37B), and Conway (38B), voted against three of the amendments but Rudolph and Conway voted for the Braveboy amendment and Cane didn't vote on the Braveboy amendment.
Howard Democrats--Bobo (12B), Pendergrass (13), Guzzone (13), and F. Turner (13)--voted against all of the amendments except that Del. Pendergrass didn't vote on the Donoghue amendment on adoptions.
Anne Arundel Democrats went different ways. Speaker Busch (30), and Del. Love (32) voted against all four amendments. Del. Beidle (32) voted against three of the amendments but for the Braveboy amendment. Del. Sophocleus (32) voted for three of the amendments but didn't vote on the Serafini amendment to retitle the bill.
How did the Delegates Vote? Part Two
This is part two in a series of posts about how delegates voted yesterday on amendments to the marriage equality bill. See the previous post for information about the content of the amendments. This post looks at how delegates from Prince George's--all Democrats--voted.
Fifteen delegates voted against all amendments: Barnes (21), Frush (21), Pena-Melnyk (21), Gaines (22), Healey (22), Ross (22), Hubbard (23), Holmes (23), Davis (25), Turner (26), Valderrama (26), Proctor (27A), Vallario (27A), Niemann (47), and Ivey (47).
Del. Griffith (25) voted against all of the amendments except he didn't vote on the Braveboy referendum amendment.
Del. Valentino-Smith (23) and Walker (26) voted for three of the amendments but against the Serafini amendment to change the title of the bill.
Del. Alston (24) voted for three of the amendments but against the Afzali amendment banning the teaching of "homosexuality" in schools.
Del. Howard (24) voted against two of the amendments but didn't cast votes on the Braveboy referendum amendment and the Serafini bill title amendment.
Dels. Braveboy (25) and Vaughn (24) had the same unique voting pattern. They both voted for the Braveboy and Serafini amendments, didn't vote on the Donoghue amendment to permit discrimination against same-sex couples in adoption, and against Afzali amendment on teaching about "homosexuality" in schools.
Del. Summers (47) was excused from voting for the day.
How Did the Delegates Vote? Part One
Over the course of today, I am going to try to present some information about how delegates voted on the amendments to the marriage equality bill yesterday.
Four amendments came up for roll-call votes in the House of Delegates; all failed. Del. Donoghue's (D-Washington) amendment would have allowed adoption agencies to turn down adoptions by same sex couples without legal recourse; it failed 58-79. Del. Afzali's (R-Frederick) amendment would have given teachers the authority to not teach about "homosexuality" in public school curricula; it lost 54-86. Del. Serafini's (R-Washington) would have changed the title from Civil Marriage Protection Act to the Same-Sex Marriage Act; it went down 52-85. Del. Braveboy's (D-Prince George's) amendment would have required through a convoluted process contingent on the passage of a separate constitutional amendment that the bill go up for a referendum; it failed 63-72.
This first post covers delegates from Montgomery and Republicans--two groups of delegates that voted overwhelmingly as blocs against and for the amendments, respectively, with very few exceptions.
All 24 delegates from Montgomery County are Democrats. All voted against all four amendments with the exception of Del. Sam Arora (D-19) who voted for the Donoghue amendment on adoption by same-sex couples.
Among the 43 Republican delegates, all voted for all four amendments with the except of three delegates who voted against the Serafini amendment to change the title of the bill: Del. Robert Costa (R-33B, Anne Arundel), Del. Patrick Hogan (R-3A, Frederick), and Del. Nicholaus Kipke (R-31, Anne Arundel).
Ravens Linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo Supports Marriage Equality
The Baltimore Sun has more information and the Huffington Post has his op-ed piece on the topic.
Photo: Marriage Equality Opponent Don Dwyer Speaks to the Press
Del. Don Dwyer doing a media interview outside the Statehouse yesterday shortly after the marriage equality bill passed second reading
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
NOM Offers Campaign Cash for Votes
The National Organization for Marriage (read: organization against marriage equality) pledges to raise $1 million to defend any Democrat who votes against marriage equality. Oh, and Maggie Gallagher--NOM's talking head--says that the opinions of younger voters should not matter on this issue. No prizes for guessing which side they support. More info on NOM's website, Joe.My.God, and AMERICABlog.
Delegate Comes Out on Eve of Marriage Vote
From the Washington Blade:Del. Peter Murphy (D-Charles County), a divorced father of two who also has two grandchildren, said his colleagues and family have known for years that he is gay.
“I have never denied [being gay],” Murphy said, “I just presumed people knew.”
Murphy’s announcement brings to eight the total number of openly gay and lesbian members of Maryland’s legislature, the most of any state in the country. There is one openly gay state senator — Rich Madaleno — and now seven members of the House of Delegates.
Murphy said he’s confident the marriage equality bill will pass later this week, possibly in a final vote on Friday.
“As I have said all along, I think it’s a strong civil rights bill,” Murphy said. “I think it’s a fair bill because it also addresses the religious issue and doesn’t require any religious organization to practice something that goes against their teachings.”
Murphy represents a conservative part of the state, but said he’s not concerned about any backlash in making his sexual orientation public in the media.
“I’m not concerned,” he said. “People who know me know that I represent everyone in the district. I work hard to make sure that everyone has a voice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Opposed Not Just to Marriage Equality but to Gays and Lesbians
From the email inbox of a member of the House of Delegates:
Dear Delegates:
Others may be afraid to speak plainly to you, but I am not.
You all have psychological disorders.
Anyone who won't see the innate rightness of heterosexuality as opposed to any other kind of sexuality is, frankly, irrational.
Changing the laws won't change reality. The ex-gay truth, which isn't all that complicated, will prevail in the end. Even if the Supreme Court gets it wrong, as it probably will, the people will get it right.
Gay-egalitarianism is bullshit. Women are made to mate with men and men with women. Period. Feelings to the contrary ought to be dealt with in therapy. See www.narth.com and www.peoplecanchange.com.
Marylanders are especially fortunate to have a quality ex-gay clinic at their disposal, in Bowie, Prince George's County. See www.gaytostraight.org.
Both political parties have been using you. Shame on them. I've taken their leaders to task and will continue to do so.
You really are on a fool's errand. GayScam will go down in history as a dark chapter.
--Sharon Kass
Silver Spring, Maryland
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
LGBT Delegates Make the Case for Marriage Equality
Dear Colleagues,
It will come as no surprise to any of you that this is a crucial week for the six of us. As you know, the House will soon consider the Civil Marriage Protection Act (Senate Bill 116), a bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry in Maryland. Importantly, it will also reaffirm religious communities' constitutional right to solemnize only those unions that fit within their faith traditions. First and foremost, we write to ask you - on behalf of our families and thousands of families headed by same-sex couples in our state - to vote yes on this legislation. Just as important, though, we are writing to refocus this debate back to what this bill will actually do. Quite simply, it will secure for our families the protections that marriage - and only marriage - provides to loving and committed couples who have pledged to spend the rest of their lives together.
The General Assembly will consider many other important bills and initiatives during this legislative session, but few will be as important to a group of Marylanders as the Civil Marriage Protection Act will be for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The estimated 15,600 families headed by same-sex couples in our state are remarkably similar to all other families. As anyone who attended the House or Senate hearing can attest, we come from all walks of life and reflect the great diversity for which Maryland is known. Same-sex couples live in every single one of Maryland's counties. Fully one-fifth of LGBT families include children under the age of 18. Our households are financially interdependent in ways that any couple in the state would recognize. We are proud to live in Maryland.
Our families need the same protections because we face many of the same challenges. We stretch our paychecks to put food on the table, keep a roof over our children's heads and plan for emergencies. We struggle with the skyrocketing costs of health care, college tuition, and gas for our cars. And though we shoulder many of these same responsibilities, we cannot count on the same kind of safety net should life throw more at us than we can handle.
Marriage is at its best and most effective during some of life's worst moments. The protections it affords to families are especially crucial when one's spouse is in the back of an ambulance, or rushed into emergency surgery, or dies unexpectedly. For us, as for all of Maryland's families, a marriage license will mean far more than the paper on which it is printed. For us, it means the possibility of shared health insurance, more stable homes for our children, and fewer conversations about legal documents with attorneys. We would never want the responsibility of voting on you and your spouse's will, power of attorney, or advanced medical directive, but you've been put in that position this week for our families. We have faith that when faced with the option, you will vote to allow same-sex couples the opportunity to fulfill the commitments of mutual support and shared responsibility that we have already made to one another and to our children.
You will hear arguments during the course of this debate that, in our opinion, distract from what this bill does and what our conversation should be about. On the one hand, some proponents of marriage equality will speak of the recognition and respect that marriage confers on a relationship. Though this is undoubtedly true, we cannot legislate what is, at its core, a matter of the heart. We certainly seek to be thought of as any other family, but what is more important - and what is actually at stake with this bill - is that we are treated as any other family by the state and its laws. And on the other hand, some opponents of marriage equality will change the subject and seek to debate "the definition of marriage." But not only does this bill not affect any couple already married in Maryland, reframing the debate abstractly distracts from the very tangible protections that we seek for our families.
There will also undoubtedly be a debate about whether the state could design some institution other than marriage. We believe that any attempt to create a separate set of rules for our families will be far more complicated than ending the exclusion of our families from marriage and inevitably lead to unequal treatment. In the decade since civil unions were first created, this belief has been borne out by experience. Before Vermont passed marriage equality legislation, their civil union law was explicitly limited to not include all the protections of marriage. And in New Jersey, despite the promise of equal treatment, many private employers have declined to offer health benefits to the civil union partners of their employees. Marriage equality is a far simpler and more powerful solution.
We understand that for many of you this will be a close call and a tough vote - personally, politically, or spiritually. We know that for many of you with LGBT family members and friends, it is an issue as personal as it is for us. For those of you who have committed to supporting the Civil Marriage Protection Act, we thank you and ask you to stand strong with us. For those of you who are not yet sure if you can support us, what we ask you for is the opportunity to talk face-to-face about the challenges our families face and how this legislation will help us meet them. What we ask is for the opportunity to protect our families as you would protect yours. Thousands of families headed by same-sex couples need your vote on this legislation. Colleagues, we need you. Please vote yes on Senate Bill 116, the Civil Marriage Protection Act. Vote yes because you know it is the right thing to do. Vote yes because you want to stand on the right side of history. Vote yes because every family in Maryland needs the protections that marriage provides.
Your colleagues,
Luke Clippinger
Bonnie Cullison
Anne Kaiser
Maggie McIntosh
Heather R. Mizeur
Mary Washington
Friday, March 04, 2011
Sam Arora Will Vote for Marriage Equality
Sam Arora's public statement from the Washington Post:
I have heard from constituents, friends, and advocates from across the spectrum of views and have thought about the issue of same-sex marriage extensively. I understand their concern--this is a very serious issue, and one that many people feel passionately about. As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate.
