Maryland, my backward Maryland - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

NOVEMBER 23, 2009


Login or create a new account ?

MORE INFO

Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade and can be reached at knaff@washblade.com.

MOST VIEWED

Maryland, my backward Maryland
There’s plenty of blame to go around for this year’s disappointing legislative session

HOME > VIEWPOINT > EDITORIAL

Apr 25, 2008 | By: KEVIN NAFF | COMMENTS

continued...

OBSTACLE to progress this year: strategy. Given all the Democratic opposition to marriage, why didn’t Equality Maryland pursue more realistic goals, like civil unions?

That question was posed by Stephen Clark, a professor at Albany Law School who is gay and tracks civil rights issues. The answer to that question is that Equality Maryland’s board members and donors wanted to pursue an all-or-nothing strategy — and they got just about nothing. Civil unions are an imperfect solution, as evidenced by the legal mess they’ve created in New Jersey, but they’re a start. Of course, the ultimate goal is full marriage recognition, but the path to those rights begins in different places depending on the political climate of the state. And in Maryland, the Democratic politicians who run the show have made it painfully clear that marriage is a non-starter. In light of that undeniable fact, the state’s gay residents would have been better served by an incremental approach like civil unions.

There were some incremental gains, including hospital visitation rights and a measure granting domestic partners an exemption on recordation and transfer taxes — a couple of bones to keep the gays happy and quiet for another year and to keep them donating their time, money and votes to Democrats who don’t deserve them.

And therein lies the real problem: the Democrats responsible for this year’s disappointing session know that they won’t be punished or held accountable for their inaction. Gays will accept a few crumbs, then dutifully open their checkbooks like the lemmings we’ve become.

There are about 15,600 same-sex couples living in Maryland, according to recent Census data, yet only about 500 people showed up for Equality Maryland’s lobby day in February. Gays have grown complacent and apathetic, always assuming that someone else is doing the heavy lifting. As the results of this session prove, lawmakers won’t do the right thing until enough voters demand it. So while Muse, O’Malley, Miller, Busch and others deserve criticism for this session’s failures, Maryland’s gay residents must look in the mirror to see the real face of blame.

COMMENTS

Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

kdogg36
Hanove, Md

0

"...Democratic politicians who run the show have made it painfully clear that marriage is a non-starter.... [T]he state’s gay residents would have been better served by an incremental approach like civil unions." Unfortunately, it has become clear that civil unions (or any alternative legal mechanism) are equally a non-starter in the Senate committee that has to approve any such measure. I think some people have the impression that O'Malley would have a civil unions bill on his desk ready to sign right now, but for this "all-or-nothing strategy," and that's simply not the case.

Posted 4/25/08 - 12:58 PM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

The governor of Washington State recently signed a 200-page bill that grants many rights to domestic partners. The strategy was one that succeeded earlier in California: seek common ground by downplaying "marriage" for now and pushing hard for all those rights. Ditto for DC. kdogg36 can't possibly say whether the same strategy might work in MD as long as Equality Maryland is polarizing the debate by blaring "marriage or nothing." A CU or DP bill won't pass if they won't push for it. And they won't push for it because it offends their self-destructive idealism. Everything else is just spin.

Posted 4/25/08 - 5:58 PM

kdogg36
Hanove, Md

0

stephenclark: (1) "Marriage or nothing" is what I think they call a straw man. In every interview where the issue of civil unions or domestic partnerships came up, it was made clear that an alternative legal mechanism would be welcomed as a step forward for gay and lesbian couples who need legal protections. Anyhow, how can you portray it as a "marriage or nothing" proposition when the LGBT political leadership also introduced and pushed for the stand-alone bills? (3) They've hardly been downplaying marriage in California and Washington. And one more point to come in the next message. :)

Posted 4/25/08 - 6:50 PM

kdogg36
Hanove, Md

0

I see I misnumbered the last one; here's the real third point. :) (3) The votes aren't there in the Senate committee, and that's not spin. A majority in that body is required to vote for any legal mechanism, and the only possible swing vote didn't even vote for the standalone bills when they went before the Senate. It seems a stretch, to say the least, to suggest that he would have been dramatically more helpful if a marriage bill hadn't been introduced.

Posted 4/25/08 - 6:53 PM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

(1) Saying CUs or DPs "would be welcomed" - as though someone is going to hand you that on a silver plate - is standard spin. In English: Equality Maryland will not actively press for a CU or DP bill. And if they won't push for it, it won't pass. You owe rank-and-file gays more candor, not misleading spin. (2) The lead sponsor of the Washington bill, a law school classmate, made clear that the strategy there was absolutely to avoid mention of marriage, so you're simply uninformed. Nor did Calif. sponsors blare about marriage in 1999, 2001, or 2003, when passing landmark DP laws. Ditto for DC.

Posted 4/26/08 - 3:51 AM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

(3) How many decades did it take to pass an employment discrimination bill in Maryland? Candor compels you to admit the activists understand it will take literally years to get a marriage bill passed but that a CU or DP is realistically achievable much sooner to provide much needed legal protection in the interim. If gay Marylanders want to go rightless for a decade or two while a marriage law is passed, fine. But there is a more practical opportunity that you and I both know activists are purposely refusing to pursue. The difference is I'm candid about it.

Posted 4/26/08 - 3:54 AM

kdogg36
Hanove, Md

0

I'm going to bow out here. Whereas I'm only able to speak for myself here, the likely perception is that I'm speaking for an organization or movement. This is entirely fair, but I'm not qualified to do so.

Posted 4/26/08 - 10:24 AM

Rabbit

0

With the spate of bills introduced in the General Assembly this year I don't know how anyone could conclude that EqualityMD pursued a "marriage or bust" program. By my count there was a marriage bill, a civil union bill, a domestic partner bill, a "let's change civil marriage to domestic partnership for everyone" bill, a tax recordation bill, a medical decision-making bill, and an inheritance tax bill (breathe). This was not a marriage-or-bust strategy, this was a We'll-take-whatever-you-want-to-give-us strategy. And that's exactly what we got: amendment evicerated junk law.

Posted 4/30/08 - 3:17 PM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

The mere introduction of bills by various legislators tells us NOTHING about the lobbying strategy and priorities of Equality Maryland. Dan Furmansky acknowledged in last week's Blade that it was a marriage-or-nothing strategy or, to be rigorously precise, a "marriage or token victory to spin incrementalists" strategy. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/4-18/news/localnews/12433.cfm. Relatedly, advocates also trashed civil unions and demanded marriage or nothing in the last year's court brief, a demand the state high court obliged by awarding nothing.

Posted 5/1/08 - 3:19 PM

Rabbit

0

Mr. Clark -- you need to do your homework before you take such a strong position. EqualityMD sponsored or had an ally co-sponsor each of the bills mentioned below.

Posted 5/1/08 - 7:21 PM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

Again, bills are spin. Furmansky: "Why would you ever ask for less than you deserve?" "LGBT civil rights organizations aren't in the business of saying, 'Hey, would you consider treating me like a second-class citizen?'" Madaleno: The strategy was to "put[] people in the situation where it's marriage or nothing." Basile: "[T]hey had to choose [to press for] one or the other," marriage or civil unions. Rouse: "[T]he push was for marriage legislation." Purist insiders have decreed "resist civil unions." So Lambda is out spiking another legal challenge, now in Iowa, with "marriage or nothing."

Posted 5/1/08 - 10:13 PM

Rabbit

0

Ah...bills are spin... and day is night. Mr. Clark -- you are so far off base from what went on in Annapolis this year that you are providing unexpected entertainment to those of us who do. Please, by all means, tell us more.

Posted 5/2/08 - 12:14 AM