- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- March 2009
- October 2006
- July 2002
America's Leading Gay News Source
Maryland Senate poised to vote on marriage bill

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Faith and Property, a conservative Catholic organization, protests the marriage bill at the Md. Capitol Feb. 17. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The Maryland Senate is poised to vote on a bill to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples this week, after a committee approved the bill in a 7-4 vote on Tuesday.
A second reading of the bill was delayed Wednesday by one day at the request of opponents. The delay was anticipated and is allowed by Senate rules to give opponents time to plot their strategy. Debate is expected to take place on Thursday, according to Sen. Roger Manno (D-Mont. Co.).
Last year the Senate passed the marriage bill 25-21 before it was scuttled in the House. Same-sex marriage supporters expect passage again this year. Senate President Mike Miller said on Wednesday that he believes there are sufficient votes for passage.
Kevin Nix, communications director of Marylanders for Marriage Equality — the coalition of LGBT rights groups that led the lobbying effort on the bill — said he expects the Civil Marriage Protection Act to be sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley for his signature by the end of this week.
According to legislative rules, though a House bill being voted on by the House of Delegates is only eligible for amendments on the second reading, if the Senate takes up a House bill, the bill is up for amendments on both the second and third readings, prior to a final vote. This means that opponents of the law have an additional opportunity to attach hostile amendments, though several sources told the Blade they doubt this will occur.
O’Malley has pledged to sign the bill should it pass the Senate as expected.
On Friday, the Civil Marriage Protection Act passed the House of Delegates 72-63, after an emotional day that included the surprise addition of support from Del. Tiffany Alston, who disappointed LGBT supporters with her unexpected rejection of the bill in March 2011. Alston proposed a friendly amendment to the bill that was accepted by the legislature in an overwhelming vote.
Once signed, the law will not go into effect until January of 2013, but first most likely will have to withstand a ballot referendum challenging the law.
Tagged with Civil Marriage Protection Act, gay marriage, Homepage Headlines, Kevin Nix, Martin O'Malley, Maryland, Maryland Senate, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, Sam Arora, same-sex marriage, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Tiffany Alston
We welcome your thoughtful, respectful comments. Please read our 'Terms of Service' page for more information about community expectations.
Comments from new visitors, flagged users, or those containing questionable language are automatically held for moderation and may not appear immediately.

view print edition
For this post I’ll assume arguendo that “God’s marriage” and “traditional marriage” mean one man and one woman, not one man and multiple wives and concubines. We still have the issue that this is America, not Iran, and that the secular government is not any particular religion’s partner in ministry. When I point this out to the ‘phobes, they immediately change the subject; I wonder why.
[Translate]
I’m not agree on this bill our tradition of marriage and the relation to god been gone.Lets support to the Knights of Columbus.
[Translate]
Thanks for proving my point (unless, of course, your post is a false-flag op from a competing VW dealer).
[Translate]
okay, they do this, but their afraid to reveal their donors because they’re in danger. Anyone see something wrong here?
[Translate]