The Other Good News: Marriage Equality Progresses in Maryland
Marriage equality is almost sure to pass the final vote in the Maryland state Senate today. The bill will then be sent to the House of Delegates, where it will almost surely pass easily. The governor will sign it.
The Washington Post:
A lot of people have been fighting hard for this, for a long time. It's difficult to get politicians to associate themselves with controversial legislation, but at this point in history I think everybody understands the right thing to do.
The Washington Post:
The Maryland Senate advanced legislation Wednesday allowing same-sex marriages on a preliminary vote of 25 to 22, all but ensuring passage of the measure in that chamber.
The action, which cleared the way for a final Senate vote Thursday, followed several hours of debate on amendments designed to make exceptions for people whose religious beliefs are at odds with the notion of same-sex couples marrying.
Measures were defeated that sought to allow religiously affiliated adoption agencies to refuse services to same-sex couples, to allow clerks of courts to refuse to conduct marriages based on religious objections and to exempt public school teachers from teaching materials that "promote" gay unions.
A couple of other proposed amendments were added to the bill, including one that makes clear that religious organizations do not have to promote same-sex marriages through educational programs, counseling, retreats or summer camps. A similar provision is in the District's law allowing gay couples to marry.
Senators on both sides of the bill predicted its passage Thursday, which would send the legislation to the House of Delegates - traditionally the more liberal chamber on social policy. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he would sign the legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs, an opponent of the bill, acknowledged after debate ended Wednesday that its passage was all but certain and said there were no plans for a filibuster - perhaps the only remaining hurdle in the Senate.
"It definitely will pass," said Jacobs (R-Harford). "We all know the outcome of this." Gay marriage wins initial approval in Maryland Senate
A lot of people have been fighting hard for this, for a long time. It's difficult to get politicians to associate themselves with controversial legislation, but at this point in history I think everybody understands the right thing to do.
posted by JimK at 8:13 AM
27 Comments:
Keep that good news coming! :)
Yay Maryland!
Let freedom ring!
no, it's the wrong thing to do
What's the point of gay marriage?
the point is to destroy marriage by removing its distinctiveness
gays could care less about commitment and fidelity
they just want to normalize homosexuality and remove any preferential encouragement for real marriage
that's the agenda
the development in Maryland is a gift to pro-family forces, however, in the long run
the new bill will be petitioned to a referendum and Maryland will join the long parade of states who have said no to institutionalized deviance
why would we be different?
Anon,
You appear to be living in a bubble of bigotry regarding gay people. I hope that someday you will see that they are people with the same hopes and needs as everyone else.
The same hopes and needs as "everyone"? Men usually hope for a woman, so right there a gay man's hopes are not the same as "everyone else's."
That argument is chock full of holes
David sees bubbles everywhere
maybe he has one of Lawrence Welk's old bubble machines!!
Everyone (or almost everyone) needs to love and be loved.
Everyone (or almost everyone) needs to have the comfort and security of family -- and the legal protections that provides.
Anon, do you have a non-snarky answer to that?
Followers of this blog should find Ruth Marcus' column in this morning's Washington Post interesting. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022406534.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Also, the article links to the letter the Attorney General sent to the Speaker of the House, explaining why the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA.
Also of interest are the Comments to this morning's Post article on religion and the recent Maryland Senate vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022408299_Comments.html#
"Everyone (or almost everyone) needs to love and be loved.
Anon, do you have a non-snarky answer to that?"
Why don't I just quote Joni Mitchell:
'we don't need no piece of paper from city hall
keepin' us tied and true
my old man is keepin' away my blues'
no one is trying to prevent anyone from loving and being loved, David
marriage is a special arrangement between a man and a woman
if people attracted to others of the same gender want to, they can start their own institution instead of trying to expropriate someone else's
"Everyone (or almost everyone) needs to have the comfort and security of family -- and the legal protections that provides.
Anon, do you have a non-snarky answer to that?"
protections and preferences are different things
there are reasons society prefers marriage
you can argue whether those reasons are valid, it's a free country, but the conversation is inherently neither biased or unjust
Anon,
Your response would only hold together if marriage were entirely a private institution. But marriage is not a private institution. It is sanctioned by the state, providing rights and responsibilities. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a state cannot provide a structure that is available to some and not others unless there is a legal basis to deprive the others of access to that structure.
So the Maryland State Senate has taken a step toward making the marriage laws of Maryland consistent with what is required by the United States Constitution.
j"a state cannot provide a structure that is available to some and not others unless there is a legal basis to deprive the others of access to that structure"
every citizen has the option of civil marriage available to them in every part of America
no one is stopping any homosexual from trying to find a member of the opposite gender willing to marry them
furthemore, the state is not generally "providing" a structure, but instead, it is recognizing a private one that appears to promote a better society
"So the Maryland State Senate has taken a step toward making the marriage laws of Maryland consistent with what is required by the United States Constitution"
the right to call same gender relationships "marriage" is not in the Constitution
The Equal Protection Clause is in the Constitution. Everyone who isn't clamping their eyes shut can easily read it.
Is the House leadership trying to avoid the spotlight? The House Appropriations Committee waited until late Friday afternoon to release the list of budget cuts Republicans are asking for in exchange for agreeing to keep the government open for another two weeks after the March 4th deadline when spending authority expires. It's almost as if the House leadership didn't want anybody to notice how far they are backing off from their more controversial spending proposals.
Here's what jumps out. No mention of Planned Parenthood, the EPA, cutting funding for bank reform or financial sector regulation. In other words, for now, House Republicans appear to be abandoning most of their explicit political agenda, and presenting the White House with something that is more or less aligned with what the Obama administration has already signaled it is ready to agree with.
actually, they are just agreeing to forgo those for two weeks while negotiations continue
but remember, every situation has a sunny side
PP will now have to raise more money to survive and thus will get in closer support with their supporters
cutting off their Federal funds will be a big win-win
actually, they are just agreeing to forgo those for two weeks while negotiations continue
but remember, every situation has a sunny side
PP will now have to raise more money to survive and thus will get in closer support with their supporters
cutting off their Federal funds will be a big win-win
"cutting off their Federal funds will be a big win-win"
It won't be a "big win-win" for the millions of poor people who will not get screened and referred for treatment for cancer and STDs, and it won't be a "big win-win" for those who won't get counseled about their HIV status or how to plan a family so it doesn't outgrow the family's ability to provide.
Cutting these funds will only be a "big win-win" for the wealthy who will get to keep another couple of years of their huge Bush tax breaks while the poor people who rely on Planned Parenthood for free or discounted medical services will get to do without.
Maybe some of those neglected poor folks will follow the GOP health plan -- get sick, die quickly.
PP will use the loss of funds as a fundraising appeal.
If Americans support a cause, from tsunamis in the Indian ocean to earthquakes in Haiti, they usually wind up sending more support than is needed.
If Americans support PP, the group will have no problem.
If Americans don't support PP, why should their tax dollars be used for it?
Think about it.
While you're sitting in your room in a straight jacket, waiting for the nice young orderlies to come take you to therapy.
So your question is why should tax dollars be used to help poor people get medical screening, counseling, and treatment for cancer, STDs, HIV/AIDS and reproductive health?
Maybe you will find the answer to that question in your heart. And if not, maybe you will find it in the US Constitution's General Welfare provision.
Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.
Of the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as “advanced economies,” the United States now has the highest infant mortality rate according to data from the World Bank. It took us decades to arrive at this dubious distinction. In 1960, we were 15th. In 1980, we were 13th. And, in 2000, we were 2nd.
Part of the reason for our poor ranking is that declines in our rates stalled after premature births — a leading cause of infant mortality as well as long-term developmental disabilities — began to rise in the 1990s.
The good news is that last year the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the rate of premature births fell in 2008, representing the first two-year decline in the last 30 years.
Dr. Jennifer L. Howse, the president of the March of Dimes, which in 2003 started a multimillion-dollar premature birth campaign focusing on awareness and education, has said of the decline: “The policy changes and programs to prevent preterm birth that our volunteers and staff have worked so hard to bring about are starting to pay off.”
The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:
• $50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”
• $1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”
• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.
This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.
It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?
And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.
This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly. Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
Anon
"the right to call same gender relationships 'marriage' is not in the Constitution"
If the government is going to have marriage within its civil laws, it cannot constitutionally deny the right to marry to a couple unless there is a constitutionally legitimate reason to do so.
Enshrining some, but not all, religions' views about what is marriage would be a clear violation of the First Amendment's separation of church and state.
Well...as we all know, one of the objectives of the Right Wing loonies is to re-write the Constitution to reflect what they want and the way they view American society and democracy. I'm sure one of the targeted Rights is the Equal Protection Clause...as well as the First Amendment. This is what we once called the "Right Wing Conspiracy"
The Anon's diatribe about premature babies would make sense if abortion were illegal. But it is legal and anyone who wishes to abort can do so.
So, the premature baby deaths are happening to the babies of women who choose NOT to abort.
There is no connection between the two issues. It's a ridiculous argument.
The point is that the GOP is cutting funds for programs to prevent premature births to "save money." But cutting funds for these programs is penny wise and pound foolish as the cost of caring for premature babies is far greater than the cost of effective prenatal/maternal health care programs to prevent them.
You appear to be existing in a percolate of bigotry regarding gay individuals. I trust that at some point you will see that they are individuals with the same desires and needs as everyone else.
Post a Comment
<< Home