October 25, 2012 | by Michael K. Lavers
Cummings to vote ‘in support’ of Md. same-sex marriage law
Elijah Cummings, Maryland, gay news, Washington Blade

Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings represents Baltimore City.

A Baltimore congressman who has yet to publicly back nuptials for gays and lesbians told the Washington Blade late on Wednesday he plans to vote for his state’s same-sex marriage law on Nov. 6.

“I respect and support the decision of the Maryland legislature and will vote in support of Question 6,” said U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Cummings spoke to the Blade two days after Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger announced his support of same-sex marriage during a debate against his opponent, state Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Baltimore County,) in Cockeysville. Maryland Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin and the rest of the state’s Democratic congressional delegation all support the same-sex marriage law.

“Ultimately, I identify with President Obama’s evolution on the topic of same-sex marriage,” said Cummings. “When you come from a religious background where you’ve been taught all your life that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then you find yourself looking at how a society is changing and how many in your own community are seeing the issue in terms of fairness and equality, it makes you re-think your position.”

A Washington Post poll last week found 52 percent of Maryland voters support Question 6, compared to 42 percent who said they oppose it.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said during a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser in D.C. on Wednesday he remains optimistic voters will support Question 6 on Election Day. He spoke hours after the Maryland Marriage Alliance announced it had begun airing radio commercials that feature Dr. Alveda King, niece of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

She criticizes the Baltimore-based National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for endorsing marriage rights for same-sex couples and Question 6.

“I understand the civil rights struggle. During the civil rights movement, we were working for access to education, to decent housings, jobs and health care,” says Alveda King in the ad. “As a minister, I believe that the NAACP leadership and gay rights activists have formed an unholy alliance by trying to convince you and me that marriage should be redefined. We did not define marriage. And we cannot redefine marriage. Marriage by definition is a holy union between one man and one woman.”

The NAACP did not immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the anti-Question 6.

Meanwhile, a group of Maryland Jewish leaders held a press conference earlier today at a Baltimore synagogue to back the state’s same-sex marriage law. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who donated $250,000 to Marylanders for Marriage Equality earlier this month, is scheduled to attend a separate press conference with O’Malley and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake on Friday.

Freedom to Marry also on Thursday announced a $100,000 contribution to the pro-Question 6 campaign that paid for a Marylanders for Marriage Equality ad that features two women discussing President Obama’s support of marriage rights for same-sex couples and a second with NAACP Chair Emeritus Julian Bond

“Freedom to Marry’s investment comes at a key moment, and helps us accomplish an important goal,” said Josh Levin, campaign manager of Marylanders for Marriage Equality. “The radio spot we launched today ensures that voters hear President Obama’s heartfelt and compelling explanation of his journey to support marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Marylanders will identify with those same values – fairness, being a good role model for their kids – and will make the decision to vote for Question 6.”

The group announced its contribution on the same day black clergy who support and oppose Maryland’s same-sex marriage law protested the suspension of Gallaudet University’s chief diversity officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, after she signed the petition that prompted the same-sex marriage referendum. They gathered outside the Northeast D.C. campus.

 

Michael K. Lavers has been a staff writer for the Washington Blade since May 2012. The passage of Maryland's same-sex marriage law, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the burgeoning LGBT rights movement in Latin America and the consecration of gay New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson are among the many stories he has covered since his career began in 2002. Follow Michael

3 Comments
  • That is an insanely old picture.

  • see, this is where i get angry. she says “Marriage by definition is a holy union…” and this is where we are no longer speaking the same language. nobody is asking you to change your holy books, your religious beliefs. if people in leadership positions within religious groups want to open the conversation, more power to them. but whatever book she is claiming to be reading that defines marriage however way she believes it is defined is not up for debate right now. and it is certainly not a book that i read or believe in. this is a legal issue, not a religious one. if you are trying to claim that religious marriage and legal marriage should be completely distinct, this is an argument i absolutely agree with. and believe it or not, this is already the case… there are plenty of religious marriages between people who do not have a legal marriage license, either by choice or because they are not afforded the right. and there are plenty of people who get married down at ye olde courthouse, or on ships, or by a close friend or relative that was “ordained” on the internet in 17 seconds, who choose not to have a religious wedding ceremony – or who have such a ceremony at a different time, in a different state, even in another country. so about marriage being, by definition, a holy union… unless you are marching against legal marriage licenses, with all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, or against divorce, or kardashian and/or spearsian nuptials, you have no argument. i’d say try again, but there is no legal argument that can be made without bringing religion and fear-mongering into it. “but jesus said..!” i’m jewish, try again. “but two boys can’t make babies!” when you get married, you aren’t required to sign a form swearing to procreate, nor must you attach a doctor’s note swearing you’re not infertile, try again. “but THE CHILDREN!” no studies to support you, try again. still waiting for a logic-based argument, founded in law, with peer-edited studies to support it. i won’t hold my breath.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2014. All rights reserved.
Directory powered by Business Directory Plugin