Sen. Ed Reilly

By Justin Snow
Justin@MarylandReporter.com

The Maryland State Senate delayed debate on the same-sex marriage bill that cleared the Judicial Proceedings Committee yesterday until Thursday morning, but a final vote is still expected by Friday.

Discussion was limited in the Senate chamber on Wednesday. Minority Whip Edward Reilly, R-Anne Arundel, offered an amendment before motioning to lay over the bill to gain more time to prepare amendments. No vote was taken on Reilly’s amendment, which would reverse a key House amendment that changed the effective date of the bill from October to January 2013.

Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, the floor leader for the bill, said Reilly’s amendment was an attempt to kill the bill. If adopted, the amendment would force the bill to go back to the House, which passed the amended bill narrowly Friday by a 72-67 vote.

Senate President Mike Miller, D-Calvert, said he hopes to have a final vote concluded by Friday morning. The Senate will continue debate on amendments tomorrow morning and, if necessary, into the night.

Miller said he does not anticipate any senators have changed their stance on the issue. The Senate approved a similar bill last year 25-21.

With a 7-4 vote, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Tuesday afternoon sent the bill allowing same-sex marriage to the full Senate, setting the stage for its full passage by the end of the week.

After less than 30 minutes of debate – mostly about the legal particulars of a referendum – the bill passed by the House of Delegates Friday was forwarded to the Senate floor without amendments. Two amendments were offered – one that would reset the legislation’s effective date to Oct. 1, and one that would establish civil unions instead of same-sex marriage – but both were quickly defeated.

“A little bit of white-out is the guillotine here,” said Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery. “If you like the bill, don’t touch it. “

Raskin voted to send the bill to the Senate floor with a favorable recommendation, as well as Committee Chairman Brian Frosh and Democratic Sens. Lisa Gladden, Baltimore; James Brochin, Balto. County; Jennie Forehand, Montgomery; Victor Ramirez, Prince George’s; and Robert Zirkin, Balto. County.

Voting against were Republican Sens. Joseph Getty, Carroll; Nancy Jacobs, Harford; Christopher Shank, Washington; and Democrat Norman Stone, Balto. County.

The legislation goes to the full Senate for debate and amendments on Wednesday. Raskin said it is likely to be ready for a final vote on Thursday or Friday. The bill passed the House of Delegates on Friday with a vote of 72-67.  The Senate approved a similar bill last year 25-21, and this year’s bill includes more protections for religious institutions, though opponents of the measure say they are still not enough.

Many legislators say they expect the Senate votes to stay the same this year.

This year’s legislation was proposed by Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration, and he will sign the bill if it gets to his desk.

Same-sex marriage opponents have pledged to collect signatures to bring the bill to referendum if it passes. If petitioners are successful, voters will get to cast ballots on same-sex marriage in November.

Brief, relatively emotionless debate

Tuesday’s debate was brief and relatively emotionless, given the deep emotions and passionate feelings associated with the issue. Opponents probed the different kinds of protections to religious institutions and people petitioning the law to referendum. Raskin, who is also a law professor, said that everything is “seaworthy,” and the religious protections should stand up in court.

Getty said that when last year’s version of the same-sex marriage came before the committee, he had tried to add amendments that protected religious beliefs. Raskin told him then that he was writing discrimination into the bill.

This year’s bill, Raskin said, allows religious institutions to opt out of solemnizing a same-sex marriage if it is against their beliefs.

“The churches have to decide who gets married in the church hall,” Raskin said. “We have to decide who gets married in city hall.”

After the same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate last year, Jacobs pledged to help collect signatures to petition it to referendum. She said on Tuesday that she’s already signed up to do that. She said that she is expecting the bill to pass the Senate – unless there is surprise opposition popping up on the floor.

“When you think you have a chance at doing something, at changing the outcome, you debate until your dying breath,” Jacobs said. “If you know you don’t, you still debate, and you offer amendments that you hope reasonable people will accept.”

Republicans are again trying to curb public benefits for illegal immigrants, as they have repeatedly in past years, against the continued opposition of social service groups.

The bill before the House Appropriations Committee would enact stricter laws requiring Marylanders provide proof of lawful presence in order to receive public benefits. For several years, Republicans have introduced similar legislation, but have been rebuffed by the committee.

House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell, R-Calvert, sponsor of the bill, said it was what Marylanders expected from their government. He added that he was not deterred by the bill’s unfavorable track record in year’s past.

“We should make sure that those limited resources are not going to people who don’t have eligibility for them,” O’Donnell said.

The bill would prohibit state agencies and local governments from providing unauthorized immigrants with benefits not required by federal law. Services such as emergency health care and disaster relief would be exempt.

Representatives from several nonprofits testified against the bill, claiming it would hurt more than help by creating barriers for the homeless and low-income Marylanders who are legal residents but less likely to have the additional documentation needed to receive public benefits.

Moreover, opponents argued that there was no identifiable problem of unauthorized receipt of public benefits largely due to laws already on the books that require proof of residency.

Solution without a problem

“This is a solution looking for a problem,” said Regan Vaughan, the director of social concerns for Catholic Charities.

Adam Schneider of Health Care for the Homeless also pointed to the increased load such legislation would create for the local departments of Social Services. The staffs of many of these departments are stretched thin and lack adequate funding. According to Schneider, they would be forced to hire new full-time positions to deal with the unnecessary paperwork the bill would create.

Several Republicans on the committee defended O’Donnell’s bill and took issue with some of the opponent’s testimony. Tony McConkey, R-Anne Arundel, disagreed with the assertion that there was no documentation of a problem, citing a report from the Department of Legislative Services that showed thousands of cases of a lack of documentation.

Revoking pensions for convicted officials

Another bill considered by the committee on Tuesday would revoke retirement benefits to any retired public official found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor related to their time in public office.

Sponsored by Del. Ron George, R-Anne Arundel, the bill comes after several corruption scandals in Prince George’s County and Baltimore City.

George hopes to close a loophole left by a 2010 joint Senate resolution that allows an elected official who is not necessarily considered a “retiree” to resign from office shortly before an indictment is issued but still receive retirement benefits. It also adds severe sexual crimes to those that can result in the revocation of benefits.

The bill met with no opposition.

Circuit Court Judge Ronald Silkworth ruled Friday that a referendum to challenge a new law granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants can go forward on this November’s ballot. In his opinion and ruling, Silkworth rejected arguments from Casa de Maryland attorneys that the new law appropriates funds and is therefore exempt from referendum.

Joseph Sandler, counsel to Casa de Maryland, which challenged the petition, said he will appeal the ruling.

Del. Neil Parrott at Board of Elections. (June 2011)

Del. Neil Parrott, R-Washington County, who founded the group MDPetitions.com to strike down the law by referendum, said Sandler’s intention to appeal was “completely expected” but that the Appeals Court would probably side with Silkworth.

“The lower court ruling sets a huge precedent,” Parrott said. “It’s a hurdle that’s too high to overcome…The other side simply doesn’t have a good case.” He said the higher court would clearly see the new law is a policy bill with no appropriation attached.

“The  Maryland Dream Act makes no reference to revenue or appropriations, but solely discusses new eligibility requirements for in-state tuition for a specified class of people,” Silkworth wrote. “Any future impact on the state’s budget that could result from the Maryland Dream Act is merely an incidental result of a law aiming to change policy.”

Neil Parrott said the ruling was a victory for Marylanders who believe the state should follow existing federal law.

“I think it is very positive news for all Marylanders,” Parrott said Saturday. “Now we are going to be able to have the chance to vote on whether to give our hard-earned money to illegal aliens to subsidize their education.”

Sandler said Saturday that Parrott has repeatedly contradicted himself by saying the bill will “cost taxpayers all this money, but yet he says it’s not an appropriation.”

For more on the vote, check out MarylandReporter.com’s text version by Megan Poinski and Justin Snow.

Same-sex marriage bill debated on the floor of the House of Delegates.

An emotional Speaker of the House Michael Busch speaks to the press after the same-sex marriage bill passes the House with a 72-67 vote, while Del. Heather Mizeur looks on.

Same-sex marriage passed the House of Delegates with a 72-67 vote Friday night, paving the way for a long battle to determine whether Maryland will be the nation’s eighth state allowing people of the same gender to wed.

After the red and green dots on the vote board were tallied, the same-sex marriage supporters in the chamber began cheering, hugging, jumping up and down, and sobbing. The razor-thin favorable margin – with votes from only two Republicans: Del. Robert Costa, Anne Arundel, and Del. Wade Kach, Baltimore County – means that the bill goes to the Senate.

If it passes in the Senate, as it did last year, it is sure to be signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley, who proposed the bill.

Many opponents of the bill cleared out of the chamber quickly after the two-hour debate wrapped up. Supporters stuck around and celebrated outside the chamber with Speaker of the House Michael Busch and O’Malley, who followed the debate from his office upstairs.

To hear reactions to the vote, check out MarylandReporter.com’s podcast by Duane Keenan.

Busch, who has been one of the bill’s major supporters in the House, became emotional as he hugged and congratulated several gay delegates. Tears came to his eyes as supporters thronged around him.

“This is the right thing to do,” he said. “I feel it in my heart.”
O’Malley also joined the crowds, thanking all of the people who helped make the vote a reality.

“We’re a good people and we all want the same thing for our kids. We all want them to live in homes that are loving and caring and stable and protected equally under the law,” he said.

Tears and hugs

Del. Anne Kaiser, D-Montgomery, one of the seven openly gay delegates, said that she started crying when she saw the tally. Del. Luke Clippinger, D-Baltimore City, another gay legislator, received dozens of hugs from his colleagues and supporters. And Del. Bonnie Cullison, D-Montgomery, who also is gay, thought of an issue near and dear to her heart.

“I have to figure out how to plan a wedding in less than a year. I think January 2013 is my date,” she said, referring to the month when the law would take effect.

The House voting board for the same-sex marriage bill.

The unofficial House of Delegates tally board, where the numbers displayed right after votes were taken, showed a 71-67 vote. The unofficial tally shows  Del. John Bohanan, D-St. Mary’s, did not vote on the bill. He actually cast a “yes” vote.

Regardless of how the bill performs in the Senate, same-sex marriage will still be a big question mark. Opponents of the bill have promised to petition it to referendum. If they are successful, the state’s voters will cast their ballots on same-sex marriage this November.

Civil, but impassioned, debate

Del. Gail Bates, R-Howard, said that she’d been told to keep her emotions out of the debate. However, she quickly realized that was impossible.

“Every one of us is going to vote based on our beliefs. And I trust each of you to do what is right in your heart,” said Bates, who spoke in opposition.

The delegates who spoke all had words that came from the heart. Most opponents laid out their arguments calmly, and repeated that their votes had nothing to do with bigotry or hate.

The last to speak was Del. Tiffany Alston, D-Prince George’s, who withdrew her support of last year’s version of the bill at the last minute. Alston voted against the bill earlier this week in the joint House committee that considered it and said that she felt the same about the bill in her heart. However, she said, it is time for the state to move beyond same-sex marriage and start working on the other important issues that lay ahead.

Alston said that because of an amendment added to the bill that delays the effective date and her own amendment that keeps the legislation from going into effect while any litigation is pending, she is confident that the bill can be petitioned to a fair referendum.

“I think the community needs to vote. I think the people need to have an opportunity to vote,” Alston said.

Against the bill, then for it

Alston was not the only vote-changer to speak on the floor. Kach said that he had made up his mind to vote against same-sex marriage. Then, he said, he sat through the committee hearing where people testified for and against the bill last week. He said the love that some of the same-sex couples had for each other, and the family life they were trying to create for their children, moved him to support the bill.

“My constituents did not send me here to judge people. So I am casting a green vote for this bill,” said Kach, who had offered the amendment to delay implementation of the bill.

But the bill did not win over everyone. Several delegates spoke up about their religious objections to same-sex marriage. Del. Pat McDonough, R-Baltimore and Harford, said that while he keeps his religion to himself, and passes no judgment on people who are gay, he feels that God’s order of things means that marriage is between a man and a woman.

McDonough said he also believes in the democratic process, and knows that the bill will be petitioned to referendum.

“The battle has now gone from this General Assembly to the people,” he said. “It has opened their eyes. We will win that petition. We will win the people.”

Fears bill doesn’t protect religious beliefs

Del. Jay Walker, D-Prince George’s, said that he has several gay friends whom he respects. But he also respects the church, and feels that the bill does not adequately protect religion.

“But on this issue here, my belief, and I believe it’s a belief of the citizens of the 26th District, I believe it’s the belief of the church groups who we’ve all heard from, we should make this so we can make decisions for generations to come that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Walker said.

Del. Geraldine Valentino-Smith, D-Prince George’s, said that her main issue with the bill did not have to do with religion, and she believes that gay couples deserve all the rights and privileges available to heterosexual married couples – but as something called civil unions.

“It became the use of the term marriage. Nothing less than the term marriage,” Valentino-Smith said. “And that is where I think a lot of us ended up in the debate. What is it with the word of marriage?”

Del. Aruna Miller, D-Montgomery, said that the issue for her is one of equality. Civil unions are not equal to marriage.

“This bill is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every Marylander,” she said.

Senate could take up bill next week

The legislation will now move to the Senate, which could take up the measure as soon as next week. Carrie Evans, the executive director of Equality Maryland, who has been lobbying on behalf of the issue for months, says she still believes they have the votes that successfully passed similar legislation last year.

“I think [Senate President Mike Miller], like the speaker, is just trying to get it out and move on to other business,” Evans said.

Although Evans was confident of the bill’s success in the Senate, she noted that a referendum process was likely inevitable. Petitioners would need slightly more than 55,000 signatures to place the issue before voters on the 2012 ballot. Polls have shown Marylanders remain divided on the issue.

Demonstrators from the American Soc. for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

By Megan Poinski and Justin Snow
Megan@MarylandReporter.com
Justin@MarylandReporter.com

After just over an hour of debate on Friday afternoon, the House same sex marriage bill was ready for a final vote, scheduled for Friday evening.

Amid reports that 200 potential amendments to the polarizing legislation had been drafted, only five were actually offered during the afternoon session.

The amendment that was added – and that generated the most debate – came from Del. Tiffany Alston, D-Prince George’s. Her amendment holds off implementation of the law until any litigation that is filed to challenge it is decided. It also finds that if one portion of the law is found to be unconstitutional, the entire law will be unconstitutional.

Floor leader Del. Kathleen Dumais, the vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, declared it a “friendly amendment,” acceptable to the committee.

“The bill does not go into effect until the court rules,” she said.

Alston has played a pivotal role in the debate over same-sex marriage since last year. She started as a co-sponsor of the 2011 bill, then became an opponent as it worked through the committee process. This year, she voted against the bill in committee, after offering an amendment that would delay the effective date until Jan. 1, 2013.

As the debate on amendments started on Thursday, Del. Wade Kach made a motion to add that amendment to the bill. It passed on a voice vote.

The amendment Alston added on Friday afternoon did not surface during the committee debate.

After delegates were finished offering amendments, House Speaker Michael Busch said that the bill would be up for a final vote at 4:30. Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell had tried to delay debate on further amendments because he wanted to get a legal opinion on Alston’s amendment and argued that the final vote should not be later in the same day.

O’Donnell says legislation being rammed through

O’Donnell told reporters he believed proponents were trying to ram the legislation through the House.

“It is my decision that everyone has had appropriate time to debate this,” Busch responded.

It remains unclear whether or not the 71 votes necessary for passage are secured, but members of both sides said the final vote will be very close.

Debate on the bill will begin once the House reconvenes at 4:30 p.m. Del. Heather Mizeur, D-Montgomery, said debate could be brief, noting what little discussion Anne Arundel Republican Del. Don Dwyer’s proposed amendment to replace the word “marriage” with “civil unions” received.

“It’s that rare time when we walk into the chamber not really knowing how anything will pan out,” said Mizeur.

In addition to Dwyer’s “civil union” amendment, changes that were offered – but not added – were:

·      Prohibiting minors of the same gender from marrying.

·      Forcing the issue to referendum, where voters could decide if they want to amend the state constitution to allow same-sex marriage.

·      Allowing parents to review educational materials teachers use to present same-sex relationships, and letting concerned parents opt their children out of learning about them.

Amendments and debate on the same-sex marriage bill in the House of Delegates were postponed until Friday to give delegates more time to consider amendments.

State House complex at sunset by Thisisbossi at Wikimedia Commons

But not before an amendment to delay the implementation date of the bill to Jan. 1, 2013 was added by voice vote. Del. Wade Kach, R- Baltimore County offered the amendment, which was previously rejected by the joint committee. Kach, who voted against the bill in committee, announced his support of same-sex marriage Thursday morning.

The amendment is meant to ensure that there would be no problems in petitioning the bill to a November referendum if it passes both houses of the General Assembly.

“There can be no games played,” Kach said.

The full House was originally set to debate the controversial bill Thursday morning. It was first put off until 6 p.m., and will be now picked up again at 12:30 p.m. Friday.

Before Friday’s session, the Judiciary and Health and Government Operations committees will meet to discuss a slew of amendments that have been proposed. After that, the Democratic caucus will meet, and then comes the session.

Opponents predict doom

Opponents of the bill, proposed by Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration to allow same-sex marriage in the state, speculated that the delays mean the bill is doomed.

“They don’t have sufficient votes for passage,” Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell said after the House recessed on Thursday evening. “When you have a 98-vote majority and still not be able to pass a bill, you delay.”

Supporters said nothing about difficulties in getting enough votes.

“I’m still really positive,” said Del. Kathleen Dumais, D-Montgomery County. “These are very complicated issues, and these amendments are very complex.”

Dumais, vice chair of the Judiciary Committee, did not know how many amendments there were, but House staff said they had received 15 before Thursday evening’s session began.

Supporters of the same-sex marriage bill seemed content with the Kach amendment that passed Thursday night.

“I think it makes a lot of people comfortable who are worried about the referendum process working,” said Del. Bonnie Cullison, D-Montgomery, a leading proponent of the bill and one of the seven openly gay legislators.

Carrie Evans, the executive director of Equality Maryland, the leading gay rights organization in the state, also expressed satisfaction. Evans noted that the implementation date does not make a great deal of difference to the bill in general.

After the session’s end, Del. Mary Washington, D-Baltimore City, tweeted, “I know its frustrating, but these delays are common with major legislation.”

One of the gay delegates, Washington said that like other far-reaching legislative initiatives, like establishing slots parlors in Maryland, more time is needed for both sides to look at what they are considering and make sure that what is passed is ideal.

But some delegates, like Del. Emmett Burns, D-Baltimore County, said there is little compromise that can be made.

“We have a divided House and a divided state,” he said.

Absent from Thursday’s session was Del. Veronica Turner, D-Prince George’s, a supporter of the bill. Turner fell ill on Wednesday, and will have a surgical procedure on Friday. Delegates were unsure Thursday night when she may return.

Attorney General Doug Gansler addresses Marriage Equality supporters in September 2011.

In the video, which has been posted by Marriage Equality on YouTube since last September, Gansler says that even if the same-sex marriage law is enacted, and then voters reject it, new judges appointed by Gov. Martin O’Malley will ultimately rule Maryland’s one man-one woman marriage law unconstitutional.

“Gov. O’Malley has been sympathetic from the start,” Gansler says to an audience of hundreds, claiming he’s “violating an attorney-client secret” by revealing O’Malley’s views. The governor was in the audience, and spoke after Gansler.

“Say we pass this, and we have same sex marriage here in Md. The right-wing myopic folks will then try to have a referendum,” Gansler says. “Every state that’s done this has not voted for marriage equality,” although Maine came close. “We may be successful.”

“Let’s say the people vote and the machines don’t work and they vote it down. So then what happens? We go back to marriage between man and a woman again. And then what happens? It goes to a court.

“Gov. O’Malley has appointed three new members to the Court of Appeals” since the state’s high court upheld current law enforcing traditional marriage in a 4-3 ruling.

“Clearly the current law is not constitutional,” Gansler says. “It violates equal protection. It violates due process. The new judges that Gov. O’Malley has appointed will ultimately decide that.”

“The only thing that would change the analysis would be if the Supreme Courtt gets this before that,” and finds the federal ban unconstitutional.

“So we will win,” Gansler told the cheering crowd.

Del. Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel, has been re-circulating the video, putting his own spin on Gansler’s remarks in another attempt to derail the push for gay marriage. Dwyer tried to impeach Gansler over an official opinion two years ago that ruled Maryland should recognize the validity of gay marriages performed in other states. He has introduced a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

Watching the video, “You will hear that the voting machines may not work and that ultimately this issue will end up before the judges that O’Malley appointed,” Dwyer said. “This video reveals great reason for suspicion regarding the legitimacy of the referendum process that may be before us.”

–Len Lazarick
Len@MarylandReporter.com

House of Delegates chamber

Duane Keenan talked to several delegates on Wednesday about Thursday’s same-sex marriage debate on the floor of the House of Delegates. Listen to his podcast here.