AFTER LAST YEAR’S high court ruling upholding straight-only marriage in Maryland, many residents of the state — including me — had high hopes for the 2008 legislative session.
Surely, many of us thought, the state’s Democratic lawmakers would right the judicial wrong inflicted by the slimmest of majorities, 4-3. But instead of courageous leadership on a pressing civil rights issue, the state’s politicians quickly reverted to type, abandoning progress and embracing the safe confines of the status quo.
No marriage. No civil unions. Not even domestic partnerships for gays living in a so-called “blue state” where Democrats enjoy monopolistic control of both houses in the legislature and the governor’s mansion.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the failure of Maryland’s lawmakers to enact relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
First, Gov. Martin O’Malley failed to provide leadership or a voice for equality despite his past support for same-sex marriage while serving as Baltimore mayor. In fact, O’Malley used the bully pulpit of his office back in September to say he respected the court’s decision — an opinion peppered with harsh anti-gay language — and to assert that lawmakers shouldn’t tell religions how to define the “sacraments.”
In the ensuing outcry from plaintiffs in the case, including several who spent their summer vacations knocking on doors to get O’Malley elected, he retreated from his obvious pandering to religious conservatives, and told the Blade he would consider signing a marriage bill if the legislature passed it, though he prefers civil unions.
But that’s where his support ended. Not all of Maryland’s politicians are so cowed by anti-gay conservatives. Attorney General Douglas Gansler did what O’Malley lacked the courage to do and publicly endorsed marriage rights for gay couples.
.
Speaking before a Senate committee considering marriage-related bills that ultimately died, Gansler described same-sex marriage as inevitable.
THE SECOND OBSTACLE to progress: the Democratic leaders in the General Assembly, Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael Busch. Both are opposed to same-sex marriage; Miller opposes civil unions, too. Throughout the session, Miller refused to speak to Blade reporters about his stance.
Sen. Rich Madaleno, who is gay, cited Miller’s religious beliefs in explaining his opposition to marriage.
“He’s on that same journey of knowing more people in his life who are open and seeing the day-to-day issues that we face, and at the same time trying to balance that with his long-held religious beliefs and just personal feelings on the issue,” Madaleno said.
But like O’Malley before him, Miller misses the point. This debate has nothing to do with religion — the Maryland marriage bill was deliberately named the “Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Protection Act” to quell fears about sinful gays marching into holy places and demanding equal treatment and respect.
It’s time that the loud cries for change that we’ve heard during the presidential race trickled down to the state level. Miller has served in the General Assembly for 30 years — more than 20 of those years as Senate president. He is out of touch with Marylanders, nearly 60 percent of whom favor civil unions legislation, according to a recent Washington Post poll. Perhaps the time and money of gay rights activists in the state would be better spent prying people like Miller and Busch out of office. It’s clear that meaningful and substantive pro-gay advances won’t come as long as they remain entrenched in Annapolis.
And they’re not the only Democrats who ought to be sent packing. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George’s County) shares the blame for the derailed efforts in Maryland. Muse, a member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, is founder and senior pastor of Ark of Safety Christian Church in Upper Marlboro. That’s right, another anti-gay black pastor who thinks that enforcing his interpretation of Christianity is part of his government job.
“Unequivocally I stand for Christian marriage,” he said. “What I am for is trying to find a way to make sure every citizen is protected under the law, regardless of their lifestyles.”
Talk about out of touch, Muse is still using the tired and offensive “lifestyles” language
in referring to gays. In sharp contrast to Muse and his discriminatory views, Sen. Gwendolyn Britt, a fellow P.G. County Democrat and prominent figure in the civil rights movement, embraced the fight for same-sex marriage until her death in January.
THE THIRD OBSTACLE to progress this year: strategy. Given all the Democratic opposition to marriage, why didn’t Equality Maryland pursue more realistic goals, like civil unions?
That question was posed by Stephen Clark, a professor at Albany Law School who is gay and tracks civil rights issues. The answer to that question is that Equality Maryland’s board members and donors wanted to pursue an all-or-nothing strategy — and they got just about nothing. Civil unions are an imperfect solution, as evidenced by the legal mess they’ve created in New Jersey, but they’re a start. Of course, the ultimate goal is full marriage recognition, but the path to those rights begins in different places depending on the political climate of the state. And in Maryland, the Democratic politicians who run the show have made it painfully clear that marriage is a non-starter. In light of that undeniable fact, the state’s gay residents would have been better served by an incremental approach like civil unions.
There were some incremental gains, including hospital visitation rights and a measure granting domestic partners an exemption on recordation and transfer taxes — a couple of bones to keep the gays happy and quiet for another year and to keep them donating their time, money and votes to Democrats who don’t deserve them.
And therein lies the real problem: the Democrats responsible for this year’s disappointing session know that they won’t be punished or held accountable for their inaction. Gays will accept a few crumbs, then dutifully open their checkbooks like the lemmings we’ve become.
There are about 15,600 same-sex couples living in Maryland, according to recent Census data, yet only about 500 people showed up for Equality Maryland’s lobby day in February. Gays have grown complacent and apathetic, always assuming that someone else is doing the heavy lifting. As the results of this session prove, lawmakers won’t do the right thing until enough voters demand it. So while Muse, O’Malley, Miller, Busch and others deserve criticism for this session’s failures, Maryland’s gay residents must look in the mirror to see the real face of blame.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
Rabbit on 5/2/0812:14 AM:
Ah...bills are spin... and day is night. Mr. Clark -- you are so far off base from what went on in Annapolis this year that you are providing unexpected entertainment to those of us who do. Please, by all means, tell us more.
stephenclark on 5/1/0810:13 PM:
Again, bills are spin. Furmansky: "Why would you ever ask for less than you deserve?" "LGBT civil rights organizations aren't in the business of saying, 'Hey, would you consider treating me like a second-class citizen?'" Madaleno: The strategy was to "put[] people in the situation where it's marriage or nothing." Basile: "[T]hey had to choose [to press for] one or the other," marriage or civil unions. Rouse: "[T]he push was for marriage legislation." Purist insiders have decreed "resist civil unions." So Lambda is out spiking another legal challenge, now in Iowa, with "marriage or nothing."
Rabbit on 5/1/087:21 PM:
Mr. Clark -- you need to do your homework before you take such a strong position. EqualityMD sponsored or had an ally co-sponsor each of the bills mentioned below.
stephenclark on 5/1/083:19 PM:
The mere introduction of bills by various legislators tells us NOTHING about the lobbying strategy and priorities of Equality Maryland. Dan Furmansky acknowledged in last week's Blade that it was a marriage-or-nothing strategy or, to be rigorously precise, a "marriage or token victory to spin incrementalists" strategy.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/4-18/news/localnews/12433.cfm. Relatedly, advocates also trashed civil unions and demanded marriage or nothing in the last year's court brief, a demand the state high court obliged by awarding nothing.
Rabbit on 4/30/083:17 PM:
With the spate of bills introduced in the General Assembly this year I don't know how anyone could conclude that EqualityMD pursued a "marriage or bust" program. By my count there was a marriage bill, a civil union bill, a domestic partner bill, a "let's change civil marriage to domestic partnership for everyone" bill, a tax recordation bill, a medical decision-making bill, and an inheritance tax bill (breathe). This was not a marriage-or-bust strategy, this was a We'll-take-whatever-you-want-to-give-us strategy. And that's exactly what we got: amendment evicerated junk law.
kdogg36 on 4/26/0810:24 AM:
I'm going to bow out here. Whereas I'm only able to speak for myself
here, the likely perception is that I'm speaking for an organization or
movement. This is entirely fair, but I'm not qualified to do so.
stephenclark on 4/26/083:54 AM:
(3) How many decades did it take to pass an employment discrimination bill in Maryland? Candor compels you to admit the activists understand it will take literally years to get a marriage bill passed but that a CU or DP is realistically achievable much sooner to provide much needed legal protection in the interim. If gay Marylanders want to go rightless for a decade or two while a marriage law is passed, fine. But there is a more practical opportunity that you and I both know activists are purposely refusing to pursue. The difference is I'm candid about it.
stephenclark on 4/26/083:51 AM:
(1) Saying CUs or DPs "would be welcomed" - as though someone is going to hand you that on a silver plate - is standard spin. In English: Equality Maryland will not actively press for a CU or DP bill. And if they won't push for it, it won't pass. You owe rank-and-file gays more candor, not misleading spin. (2) The lead sponsor of the Washington bill, a law school classmate, made clear that the strategy there was absolutely to avoid mention of marriage, so you're simply uninformed. Nor did Calif. sponsors blare about marriage in 1999, 2001, or 2003, when passing landmark DP laws. Ditto for DC.
kdogg36 on 4/25/086:53 PM:
I see I misnumbered the last one; here's the real third point. :)
(3) The votes aren't there in the Senate committee, and that's not spin. A
majority in that body is required to vote for any legal mechanism, and the
only possible swing vote didn't even vote for the standalone bills when
they went before the Senate. It seems a stretch, to say the least, to
suggest that he would have been dramatically more helpful if a marriage
bill hadn't been introduced.
kdogg36 on 4/25/086:50 PM:
stephenclark:
(1) "Marriage or nothing" is what I think they call a straw man. In every
interview where the issue of civil unions or domestic partnerships
came up, it was made clear that an alternative legal mechanism would
be welcomed as a step forward for gay and lesbian couples who need
legal protections. Anyhow, how can you portray it as a "marriage or
nothing" proposition when the LGBT political leadership also
introduced and pushed for the stand-alone bills?
(3) They've hardly been downplaying marriage in California and
Washington.
And one more point to come in the next message. :)
stephenclark on 4/25/085:58 PM:
The governor of Washington State recently signed a 200-page bill that grants many rights to domestic partners. The strategy was one that succeeded earlier in California: seek common ground by downplaying "marriage" for now and pushing hard for all those rights. Ditto for DC. kdogg36 can't possibly say whether the same strategy might work in MD as long as Equality Maryland is polarizing the debate by blaring "marriage or nothing." A CU or DP bill won't pass if they won't push for it. And they won't push for it because it offends their self-destructive idealism. Everything else is just spin.
kdogg36 on 4/25/0812:58 PM:
"...Democratic politicians who run the show have made it painfully clear that marriage is a non-starter.... [T]he state’s gay residents would have been better served by an incremental approach like civil unions."
Unfortunately, it has become clear that civil unions (or any alternative legal mechanism) are equally a non-starter in the Senate committee that has to approve any such measure. I think some people have the impression that O'Malley would have a civil unions bill on his desk ready to sign right now, but for this "all-or-nothing strategy," and that's simply not the case.
