Maryland state Sen. Gwendolyn Britt died suddenly last weekend.
La Clinica blames staffing, facility hurdles for trans program delays
Official says non-commercial ‘cruising’ not prosecuted
advertisement
advertisement
|
JOSHUA LYNSEN
Friday, January 18, 2008
Plans to advance a same-sex marriage bill in Maryland were dealt a blow this week, following the death of a key gay rights supporter in the legislature.
Sen. Gwendolyn Britt (D-Prince George’s County) died early Saturday morning from heart failure or stroke while being admitted to Doctor’s Community Hospital in Lanham. She was 66.
Britt, who long fought for civil rights issues, was to become the lead Senate sponsor of the Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Protection Act when it’s introduced this month in the Maryland General Assembly.
“This is a devastating loss, because Sen. Britt was a leader on the issue,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director at Equality Maryland. “But this issue is about more than just one person. It’s about the dignity and worth of thousands of Maryland residents.”
Written to make valid marriages of “two people,” the bill also makes clear that churches may continue to choose whom to marry. It was drafted after Maryland’s highest court in September upheld a state law restricting marriage to straight couples.
Furmansky pledged that the bill would go forward without Britt, but it was not immediately clear who would succeed her as the lead Senate sponsor.
Also unclear was how Britt’s death might hurt efforts to rally black legislators to support the bill. Britt, a vice president of the Black Caucus of Maryland, was considered key to generating such support.
Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), the state Senate’s only openly gay member, said he would support the bill, but at Blade deadline was unsure whether he or another senator would become its lead sponsor.
Furmansky said Equality Maryland remained committed to pushing the bill this session.
“This issue transcends Equality Maryland, Dan Furmansky, Sen. Britt and Sen. Madaleno,” Furmansky said. “Ours is a movement that simply won’t die with the loss of an amazing advocate. It will be strengthened because her convictions and spirit will be with us as we move forward. And that’s just what she would have wanted.”
Furmansky said during his first extensive conversation with Britt on marriage equality, he listed a plethora of reasons Maryland should legalize such unions for same-sex couples.
“She let me ramble on for at least an hour,” he said. “There are few legislators who are so willing to listen and learn and look at the merits and arguments as opposed to focusing on the politics of an issue.”
Britt embraced the issue and spoke in support of same-sex marriage during a February 2007 rally outside the Maryland State House.
“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?”
Furmansky said Britt readily became lead sponsor of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act when asked.
“I personally asked her if she would be the lead sponsor on the Senate bill and she didn’t hesitate,” he said. “She wanted to do it, she understood why it was important and I think she was honored we wanted her to be the lead.”
Britt told the Blade in September that the bill would face contentious debate in the Senate, but she pledged to fight for the rights it would bring.
“There are those whose minds you are not going to change,” she said. “It took a century to change laws on integration and decades to change laws on interracial marriage. You can’t change minds overnight — it is an evolution. It’s a long road for some and a much shorter one for others.”
Furmansky said he’ll miss Britt, a veteran of the 1960s civil rights movement who once spent 40 days in jail in Mississippi for refusing to leave a train station that was closed to blacks.
She was also arrested for trespassing after she and four other black friends sat on the merry-go-round at Glen Echo Park, which was segregated at the time.
“She glowed as a human being,” Furmansky said. “She was warm and beautiful and intelligent and it was an honor to know her, and I’m sad that I just didn’t get more time to hear her stories and learn about her life.”
Britt’s death came two days after she and other lawmakers voted to codify the term “domestic partner” in state law.
The move, spurred by legislation last year that requires health insurers to offer domestic partner benefits to companies that request them, was welcomed by gay activists and lawmakers.
“I think it’s indicative of the recognition that there are a lot of families in our state who are outside of the married man-woman model,” Madaleno said. “And they need access to certain benefits, certain protections — in this case, health insurance benefits.”
Lawmakers voted 12-4 to define domestic partners as people over age 18 who are “in a committed relationship of mutual interdependence” and meet other qualifications. Documents such as joint bank account statements and driver’s licenses that show a shared address are accepted forms of proof.
Carrie Evans, policy director at Equality Maryland, said the definition had “nothing offensive or bad about it,” but could have done more to help lower-income adults become domestic partners.
“Things like [accepting] documentation at the school that both members can pick up children,” she said, “where no lawyer is involved but these two are clearly in a committed relationship.”
Although the definition does not change the state’s law banning same-sex unions, it was challenged.
“There was another, unbelievable attempt by the righteous Republicans to tie any small advancement for same-sex couples to this larger battle over saving the institution of marriage,” Madaleno said. “I mean, to me it was almost comical when one of the Republicans said we’re redefining marriage as it’s been understood since the founding of our nation. The hyperbole was extreme.”
Madaleno said objections also were raised because the term also allows opposite-sex couples to become domestic partners, and the enactment of such a definition was seen as “creating an incentive not to marry.”
“As if the only reason people marry was to get health insurance and marriage presents,” he said. “I wonder what that says about their own marriage?”
Joshua Lynsen can be reached at jlynsen@washblade.com.
|
 |
