Jul 11, 2003  |  By: JOE CREA  | COMMENTS     

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Emboldened by a recent series of gay rights victories, gay Maryland Del. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Kensington) is working with other legislators and gay rights activists to draft civil union legislation that he hopes to introduce in Maryland’s next General Assembly session in January.

“I had a civil union bill drafted this year, and I’ve been working on trying to pass it around to people to get their input,” Madaleno said. “With the Lawrence and Canadian decisions, it seems like this year, whether they are ready for it or not, the debate will begin.”

In the case of Lawrence vs. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law with sweeping language that activists have said put gay relationships on equal footing with heterosexual couples. The high courts in Ontario recently opened up civil marriage for gay couples, leading Canada’s national government to commit to federal marriage legislation that includes gay and straight couples.

Madaleno is working on the bill with Maggie L. McIntosh (D-Baltimore), a fellow gay legislator and chair of the House Environmental Matters Committee. McIntosh was House speaker last term.

Madaleno said the legislation is patterned after Vermont’s civil unions bill. He added that House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Annapolis) has said “some positive things” about civil union legislation, including that same-sex couples should be put “on a level playing field,” but Madaleno cautioned that Busch has not yet officially stated his views on the drafted legislation.
Calls to Busch’s office were not returned by press time.

“Part of this whole debate is going to be educating people about what we are asking for,” Madaleno said. “What are the inherent rights that are provided when someone is married? Marriage means decision-making rights for your spouse, inheritance rights and joint property rights. We are not asking for something that is radical or threatening to the natural order.”

Jon Kaplan, executive director of Free State Justice, a statewide gay rights advocacy group, is working with Madaleno and other legislators on the draft of the civil unions bill.

“I feel that we will reach equality someday, I just want to do it sooner,” Kaplan said. “But it takes time and we are educating some very religious, narrow-minded people along the way.”

trong>Bill ‘would not pass the Senate’
Many state senators have reservations about civil unions legislation and some said the chances of such legislation passing are slim.

Thomas McLain Middleton (D-Waldorf), chair of the Senate’s finance committee, who voted for Maryland’s 2001 anti-discrimination bill, told gay rights activists that he could not support legislation that would extend health and pension benefits to gays.

“I’m not ready for [civil unions], and neither are the majority of Marylanders,” Middleton said. “[A bill] would definitely start the debate, garner media attention and the public would be engaged in a dialogue thus creating awareness for and against it. But it would not pass the Senate.”

Middleton said he had not spoken to Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich about civil unions legislation but predicted that his “fairly moderate to conservative agenda” would mean that he wouldn’t support such a measure. He added that the only reason the 2001 anti-discrimination bill passed was because former Gov. Parris Glendening, “put his gubernatorial muscle behind the bill.”

“[Glendening] very clearly made it his No. 1 priority and that’s the only reason why it was successful,” Middleton said.
Madaleno said he didn’t know what Ehrlich thinks of civil unions legislation.

“The governor is very open and appropriate in celebrating his marriage,” Madaleno said. “He very often credits his spouse for much of his success. I think that’s great and I think I should be able to be as public and generous to my spouse and my spouse deserves the same benefits as his spouse.”

In his campaign for governor, Ehrlich remained largely mum on gay issues. But in a May 29, 2002, letter he sent to a constituent as a member of the state’s Congressional delegation, Ehrlich spoke disapprovingly of mandates for domestic partners.

“I believe individuals make choices in life and that ‘domestic partners,’ too often a term which is vague and non-binding, should not qualify for the same benefits due to legally committed married spouses of employees unless a company wishes to extend those benefits,” he wrote at the time. ...