‘Our side is the side of love. … Our side is the side of the separation of church of state,’ Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, told lobbyists in Annapolis on Monday. (Blade photo by Henry Linser)
Text of state Del. Don Dwyer’s message to Maryland delegates seeking support of his proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage:
Dear Colleague,
It should come as no surprise that I have drafted a constitutional amendment to preserve the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman.
It is true that the issue of allowing same-sex marriages now sits in Maryland’s high court, but it is also true that high courts across the country have routinely held that the issue of marriage is an issue that falls within the specific jurisdiction of the state legislature and not the court. The courts also recognize that certain rights and privileges are legislative in nature and therefore must be addressed by the legislature.
I realize that there are strong personal views on both sides of this issue and for that reason I believe that the public should have the final decision in regards to the definition of marriage. This should be accomplished by this body owning up to it’s [sic] jurisdictional responsibility to vote to pass a constitutional amendment as has recently been demonstrated in the following state legislatures.
On July 6, 2006 New York’s high court ruled that gay couples do not have the right to marry because their state constitution does not require the recognition of same sex marriages. Twenty days later, the high court of Washington State stated “The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples further procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents,” Judge Madsen wrote.
On July 14, 2006 the Federal court in Nebraska upheld that state constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. As recently as October 26, 2006 New Jerseys [sic] high court gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
Most recently, the high court of Massachusetts issued a ruling saying lawmakers have a constitutional duty to vote on a proposed amendment to ban same sex marriage.
It is time we join with other state legislatures in our great country that have allowed their citizens to decide such important issues by a vote of the people.
The language of my constitutional amendment reads as follows.
1. Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this state.
2. That all rights be conferred equitably and not based on sexual orientation.
3. That under no circumstances does this constitution permit same-sex relationships to be taught in K-12 public schools.
If you would like to cosponsor “Maryland’s Marriage Protection Act” please respond to this e-mail and my office will make arrangements to meet you to sign the blue back.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Fred Mason III loves his partner, Philip Lovett. He loves being married to him. But he hates that they had to travel to Canada to make it legal.
That’s why Mason, who lives in Baltimore, joined hundreds of people Monday in Annapolis to demand marriage equality.
“When people have to leave the nation of their birth to participate in a basic right of citizenship, we do not have equal justice under the law,” Mason said as Lovett stood beside him.
“When there is hesitation about marriage equality, when there is discussion of setting up a separate but equal — but unequal — system, we do not have equal justice under the law. And we will be here until we get full equality under the law.”
An estimated 400 people cheered Mason’s words outside the Maryland State House. The rally came days after state lawmakers introduced two constitutional amendments that would bar same-sex marriage.
Sen. Larry Haines (R-Baltimore and Carroll counties) is pushing Senate Bill 564, which would amend the state constitution to include the following: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this state.” The proposal is backed by 12 other senators.
Meanwhile, Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) has introduced a similar measure via House Bill 919. The proposal calls for a similar definition, but also would bar public schools from teaching about “same-sex relationships.” More than 30 delegates back the bill.
Activists and some lawmakers railed against the proposals at Monday’s rally.
Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, said legislators must protect their constituents from the hate such amendments epitomize.
“Our side is the side of love,” he said. “Our side is the side of religious freedom. Our side is the side of the separation of church of state. Our side is the side of strong, healthy families. Our side is the side of truth.”
Sen. Gwendolyn Britt (D-Prince George’s County) told the crowd that marriage is a “fundamental right” that should be available to all couples.
“If two people love each other, why shouldn’t they be allowed the same rights as every other individual?” she said. “Why shouldn’t they be entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities, no matter what their gender?”
Del. Victor Ramirez (D-Prince George’s County) agreed. He said it’s time for Maryland to allow marriage equality.
“It is time that we face what is wrong and right it,” he said. “It is time to acknowledge that someone’s sexual orientation should not be a matter that causes us to treat him or her differently under the law.”
The rally, organized by Equality Maryland, was led by lesbian Lisa Polyak, a lead plaintiff in a key marriage case being reviewed by the state’s highest court. A ruling could come at any time.
Polyak encouraged a crowd that included gays, transgender people and their straight allies to tell state lawmakers “that we will no longer allow ourselves to be pigeon-holed, or to be pitted against one another to compete for crumbs of respect or legislative protection.”
She told attendants to seek pledges from their elected representatives to oppose the constitutional amendments and support a bill outlawing discrimination against transgender people.
That legislation, Senate Bill 516, would bar discrimination against transgender people in the areas of employment, housing, credit and public accommodations.
Polyak said the initiative is an important step toward bringing about equality for all Marylanders.
“The surface issue may be race, or gender, ethnicity, or religious affiliation, physical ability, immigration status, sexual orientation or gender identity,” she said, “but the common theme is that no law or regulation, no privilege or protection, should be predicated or denied on the basis of any human condition.”
Dana Beyer, a transgender Equality Maryland board member, said she and other transgender people require and deserve the same rights that are guaranteed to others.
“We are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters,” she said. “We are all products of highly traditional families. We are simply gender variant.”
Beyer said too few lawmakers understand that transgender Marylanders can be denied public shelter or arrested for using the bathroom. Only in Baltimore are anti-discrimination measures in place.
She implored the crowd to educate their legislators and demand they rectify the situation.
“Each and every one of you has the power to make this happen,” she said. “When you go to see your legislators, each and every one of you has the power to turn that one vote in our favor.”
Following the rally’s conclusion, many attendants moved inside for prearranged meetings with legislators.
Among the attendees were about 10 teenage students from Sandy Spring Friends School in Montgomery County. The students, members of the school’s gay-straight alliance, were led by 16-year-old Elizabeth Duthinh.
The group quickly divided, enabling each student to speak with his or her home district’s legislator. Duthinh, who is bisexual, joined Sue Abromaitis, an Equality Maryland district coordinator, and others to speak with Del. Galen Clagett (D-Frederick County) in his quiet, fourth-floor office.
Early in the meeting, Clagett pledged to oppose Dwyer’s proposed constitutional amendment.
“I hate wasting time with this stuff,” he said. “We’re not dealing with real issues.”
Clagett, 65, said he so opposed the proposed amendment that he threw Dwyer’s request for support into the trash. To prove his point, the delegate later sifted through his trash bin and produced the document for a reporter.
During the relaxed meeting, Clagett listened to as the activists sought his support on different issues. Duthinh asked him to review a comprehensive anti-bullying policy introduced in Michigan and Abromaitis told him about the transgender civil rights bill.
At the meeting’s conclusion, Clagett offered a frank assessment of their requests.
“Safer schools are easy,” he said. “That transgender thing could be a problem.”
Clagett, who represents an area in central Maryland, said some Democrats fear Republicans could use such legislation as an electioneering “weapon.” He promised to review the proposal, but made no commitment to support it.
Despite the dodge, the meeting ended amicably. Clagett thanked the advocates — Duthinh particularly — for taking such an interest in state affairs.
“I’m glad you’re active,” he said. “It’s important to be heard and stand up for what you believe in. Sometimes it’s hard, but you have to do it.”
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
