LOCAL

Two pro-gay bills advance in Maryland
Gender identity dropped from hate crimes measure, angering activists

JOE CREA
Friday, April 02, 2004

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Bucking the current national trend of state legislatures passing restrictions on gay rights, the Maryland General Assembly this week moved to advance two pro-gay proposals.

A bill that would set up a domestic partner registry and offer medical decision-making rights for unmarried couples passed the Maryland House by an overwhelming vote of 103-30.

Meanwhile in the Senate, the fate of another pro-gay measure, seeking to add sexual orientation to the state’s existing hate crimes statute remained in question.

Earlier this week, the House passed — by a vote of 95-40 — a watered down version of the hate crimes bill, which adds sexual orientation language to the existing statute. Equality Maryland, a gay rights group, declared that it would not support a measure that does not offer protections based on gender identity and expression.

By creating a registry for “life partners,” the Medical Decision Making Act (HB 1284) would allow partners to visit one another in the hospital and make life or death decisions for each other.

The bill now goes to the Senate floor for a vote and political observers said it will likely pass.

Originally intended for same-sex couples, the House last Saturday approved an amendment to the medical bill that would open up the registry to all adults in a committed relationship, regardless of age or sexual orientation.

But not every delegate embraced the new version.

Del. Gareth E. Murray (D-Montgomery County), whose said his constituents are an equal mix of gays and a strong religious community, voted against the medical bill in committee because it “left certain parts of the gay community out.”

Murray said that many of his constituents are gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships but, for whatever reason, cannot be “out.” The registry aspect of the bill “forces” those closeted individuals to publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation when they may not want to.

“There are certain communities where individuals will not sign up, for reasons of race, where they work or the sensitivity of their position. … They cannot afford their exposure,” Murray said. “Because I’m not willing to come out, is my relationship any more special than the one who wants to come out?”

But some of Murray’s gay constituents criticized his vote.

George Neighbors and his partner John Bator of Silver Spring, Md., who actively campaigned for Murray’s first election in 2002, said they were puzzled by his vote and suggested that his congregational ties to the People’s Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring, where he is assistant to the senior minister, likely impacted his decision.

Dan Furmanksy, executive director of Equality Maryland, also criticized Murray’s vote.

“Delegate Murray voted against this bill in committee and abstained from voting on the floor where 103 people voted in favor of the measure, including 23 Republicans,” Furmanksy said. “This is perhaps the most significant LGBT bill in this state in a few years and Delegate Murray’s actions are certainly disappointing to many in his district. We hope to work with him in the future to ensure that he is seeing eye-to-eye on concerns to his gay and lesbian constituents.”

Murray also disapproved of the bill’s provision that allows all unmarried couples to register with the state.

“No, everyone should not be able to do this and that provision diminishes the importance of the bill,” Murray said. “Others have an option — they can get married and must go through the channels that the gay community has had to jump through for so many years with powers of attorneys.”

Before offering an amendment in committee that would have removed the registry portion, Murray said the inclusion of the registry in the bill was interpreted amongst his religious constituents as resembling “marriage.” Without the registry, Murray’s religious constituents “would have no problem” with the bill because it is a matter of “human rights,” he said.

Furmansky said that there must be statewide verification of these relationships.

“You can’t expect a funeral home to hand over a body to someone just because they have a paper with a stamp on it,” Furmansky said.

By opening the measure to all unmarried couples, the bill became more palatable to legislators, including Del. Charles Boutin (R-Anne Arundel), who earlier this year sponsored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Maryland, and Del. Carmen Amedori (R-Carroll County), who was criticized for asking gay marriage supporters in a recent hearing if they believed in God.

The amendment opening up the bill to all unmarried couples passed 69-62 last week and was offered by Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr. (D-Baltimore County), who sponsored a bill last month that would have prohibited Maryland from recognizing gay marriages performed in another state. His marriage bill was killed in a House committee last month.

Maryland State Sen. John A. Giannetti failed to co-sponsor a hate crimes bill, despite a promise to do so following his vote to kill a similar measure last year.

Murray conceded that in politics “you go along to get along” but expressed concerns about the “long run” of a bill that’s open to all. He also questioned if it will pass a second House floor vote and if Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich would sign the measure. A spokesperson for Ehrlich, said the governor would not comment on pending legislation. The governor has said in the past that he opposes gay marriage rights.

“In the long run, you lose because people still have not been given the respect that is due,” Murray said.

Dispute over sponsorship
The House version of the hate crimes bill, stripped of protections based on gender identity and expression, passed this week, 95-40. The measure sailed out of the House Health & Government Operations Committee last week, 16-6, with three Republicans joining Democrats in support of the legislation.

Furmansky reiterated that his group will not support legislation that does not offer protections based on gender identity and expression.
A separate hate crimes bill sponsored by Sen. Sharon Grosfeld (D-Montgomery County), which would add protections based on gender identity to the statute, is now dead, following the approval of the House measure.

Sen. John A. Giannetti (D-Prince George’s County), whose committee vote killed a bill last year seeking to add sexual orientation to the state’s hate crimes statute, said at the time that he would co-sponsor the measure in 2004.

But the only sponsor of the now-defunct Senate bill is Grosfeld.

According to Grosfeld, Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery County) planned to sponsor the legislation minus the gender identity protections.

Giannetti said he wanted to co-sponsor the Garagiola measure, but backed out because the measure did not include the gender identity provision. Giannetti added that Grosfeld “put the bill out there without telling me.” But Grosfeld said she agreed to sponsor the bill when “Senator Garagiola changed his mind.”

Furmansky said the decision was made “last minute” leaving no time to secure sponsors.

Grosfeld expressed unhappiness over the watered down House bill.

“It really upsets me that there is such prejudice and bias and discrimination based on my colleagues ignorance,” Grosfeld said. “One of the senators could attempt to put the language back in but that would probably be unsuccessful. My colleagues were not worried about it passing with that language, they just believed they could not get it passed.”

national | local | world | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy