Jan 16, 2004  |  By: JOE CREA  | COMMENTS     

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Since his election in 2002, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has kept quiet on gay rights issues. But a recent letter sent from the governor’s office to a gay constituent is raising eyebrows among the state’s gay rights proponents, who are criticizing several anti-gay positions outlined in the correspondence.

The letter, signed by Ehrlich, says he opposes domestic partnership legislation and is also against adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the state’s hate crimes law.

“I believe that individuals make choices in life and that ‘domestic partners,’ a term which is vague and non-binding, should not qualify for the same benefits due to legally committed married spouses of employees unless the private employer decides to extend those benefits,” Ehrlich wrote in the letter dated Jan. 5.

Gay activists and politicians say that the letter is “offensive,” and rife with contradictions from previous statements Ehrlich has made.

David Toth, a resident of Adelphi, Md., said he sent letters to local, state and federal government officials on gay issues.

“I was very upset by his responses,” Toth said. “I knew he was not keen on the ideas and any kind of hate crimes bill, … to me the letter was very much a slap in the face. I was very shocked.”

Maryland Del. Rich Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery County), who is gay, said he was “appalled” the first time he read the letter and added that it was “very troubling, from both the opportunity to get something done and the way his positions are outlined.”

But Madaleno said he intends to “give the governor the benefit of the doubt,” since most of the language in the letter appeared to be “lifted” from his days in the U.S. Congress.

“You’ve got various different offices in the administration and they are not necessarily all speaking together,” Madaleno said. “This letter was probably cobbled together by a junior staff person without consulting other staff members.”

Ehrlich, through a spokesperson, declined Blade interview requests but his office verified the letter’s authenticity.

“Given that the governor’s position on gay rights issues is clearly articulated in the two-page response and with the pending legislative session, an interview is not possible at this time,” said Shareese DeLeaver, Ehrlich’s press secretary.

In the letter, Ehrlich states his opposition to hate crime statutes, noting that it is “discriminatory to create law that provides a specific cause of action based on an individual’s physical characteristics or sexual orientation,” and adding that “any crime against a person is, by definition, motivated by hate.”

“Laws of this nature is patently discriminatory because it gives special government protection to an artificially created class of citizens by assigning different prosecution and sentencing guidelines from the rest of society.”

But when Ehrlich was a young member of the Maryland House of Delegates, he was the second co-sponsor of the state’s hate crimes law in 1988 that included protections for race, religion and national origin, Madaleno said. The legislation passed without opposition.

Activists claim hypocrisy
Madaleno and Dan Furmansky, executive director of Free State Justice, a Maryland gay rights group, were puzzled by the governor’s contradictions on hate crimes legislation.

“Does the governor feel he made that vote erroneously and is he calling for the repeal of our state’s existing hate crimes statute?” Furmansky asked.

Furmansky said that Free State Justice is supporting a hate crimes statute this year in the General Assembly that will offer protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

When Ehrlich won the governorship in 2002, his chief of staff told the Blade after his victory that while the governor-elect was not supportive of gay marriage, he would be open to hearing proposals about domestic partnership registries and civil unions.

In 2002, Steve Kreseski, Ehrlich’s chief of staff, said, “Some of the other ideas — domestic partner registries or, perhaps, civil unions — he would be open-minded to hearing those proposals.” Kreseski did not respond to Blade inquiries this week.

But in his recent letter, the governor called the term domestic partners “vague and non-binding” and noted that “the definition of ‘domestic partner,’ often drafted in this type of legislation, invites fraud and abuse of employer-provided benefits.”

Madaleno said Ehrlich’s comments pose problems for legislation that he is preparing that would recognize gay couples either through civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Furmansky expressed frustration with the governor’s remarks and said that there was still “room for movement in the General Assembly on relationship recognition issues.”

“It is dismaying to hear everything immediately discounted in advance of any dialogue or even draft legislation,” Furmansky said.

Furmansky dismissed the notion ...