Feb 23, 2007  |  By: JOSHUA LYNSEN  | COMMENTS     

Gays and conservatives alike are railing against proposals to ban same-sex marriage in Maryland, albeit for different reasons.

The two proposed constitutional amendments pending at the General Assembly in Annapolis are drawing attacks from gays for being discriminatory and from conservatives for being insufficient.

Defend Maryland Marriage Chair Rick Bowers, whose group supported earlier and stricter amendment proposals, said he’s disappointed that this year’s amendments seek only to define marriage.

“In Maryland, we already have marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman,” he said. “This is a question that needs no further answering. I think we need to move on to the issue of civil unions, but I don’t know how many politicians are willing to grab that hot potato.”

Bowers, pastor of Living Stone House of Worship in Pasadena, Md., said because neither the House nor Senate proposal addresses civil unions, he isn’t planning to testify at an upcoming Senate hearing on the issue.

Equality Maryland Executive Director Dan Furmansky — who plans to attend the March 1 hearing and is recruiting speakers to testify against the amendment — said he won’t miss Bowers.

“We’re always happy when people choose to stay at home on anti-gay day in the General Assembly,” Furmansky said.

The amendment, as proposed in the Senate, would amend the state constitution to include the following: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is a valid marriage in this state.”

Offered as Senate Bill 564, the amendment is championed by Sen. Larry Haines (R-Baltimore and Carroll counties) and supported by 12 other senators.

Meanwhile, Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) has introduced a similar measure via House Bill 919. His proposal calls for a similar definition, but also bars public schools from teaching about “same-sex relationships.” More than 30 delegates back the bill.

Both proposals omit a second sentence that Haines pushed last year: “A civil union or relationship between parties of the same sex, by whatever name or title, that confers the benefits of marriage is not valid in this state and is against the public policy of this state.”

Bowers said his support for the amendments is contingent on that or similar wording being included.

“Sen. Haines is a good guy — I’m just not in agreement with him on this,” he said. “I think he might be going with the theory that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. But in my opinion, this is an already answered question.”

Bowers’ decision to withhold his support comes as gays are rallying to defeat the amendments.

About 400 people assembled Feb. 12 outside the State House in Annapolis to show their opposition to the amendment effort and call for marriage equality.

Furmansky said the event was just one of the group’s tactics aimed at fighting the amendments and that his organization is working to coordinate testimonies March 1 from same-sex couples, constitutional law professors and civil rights leaders.

“In general,” he said, “we try to provide a broad cross section of people to speak out against discrimination in the constitution.”

Those experts are expected to testify again March 15, during a House hearing on the issue. The testimony may prove unnecessary, though, as lesbian Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) said Dwyer’s proposal has “no legs.”

She said his amendment’s stipulation that public schools not teach students about “same-sex relationships” did nothing to help his cause.

“He seems each year to take it one step further, to make it more ridiculous than the previous year in his quest to spew hatred toward the GLBT community,” she said. “He only won re-election by 25 votes. Perhaps his constituents were sending him a message that there are other priorities that he should be focusing on?”

Mizeur also noted that Dwyer’s reputation among state lawmakers does little to help his chosen issue.

“Everyone here knows that he’s a one-trick pony,” she said. “That’s the only piece of legislation he ever puts in and puts any attention toward.”

In an e-mailed response to Mizeur’s comments, Dwyer said his fellow delegate “should check the facts a little closer.”

“Every year I have several bills,” he wrote. “As far as the one trick pony comment, I have many tricks up my sleeve.”