Same-Sex Marriage Debate Loses Heat in Baltimore
A resolution seeking support of same-sex marriage drew little attention during a committee hearing on Wednesday.
Photos
Gay marriage isn’t as controversial as it used to be in Charm City.
On Wednesday night, a Baltimore City Council resolution asking the city’s delegation to the Maryland General Assembly to support same-sex marriage legislation passed the Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee with no opposition and only a handful of people present to support the bill.
That’s in stark contrast to what occurred in 2008 when Councilman Bill Henry submitted a similar resolution. During a hearing for that bill, opponents spoke against the legislation and sent several emails and letters that Councilman James Kraft, the committee chair, had to read into the record.
“It shows in the last couple of years that the issue has become less controversial—at least in Baltimore,” Henry said.
Henry said he thinks the lack of opposition to the resolution also shows that opponents of same-sex marriage are focusing their efforts at the state level because they recognize this may be their last chance to stop it from becoming state law.
Gov. Martin O’Malley has said that he supports legislation allowing for same-sex marriage, and bills creating civil marriage between homosexual couples are expected to be hotly debated during the 2012 General Assembly session.
In 2011, same-sex marriage legislation failed when the House of Delegates did not vote on the bill and instead sent it back to the House Judiciary Committee.
“I think we’re just seeing that this is an idea that’s time has come,” Henry said.
Henry said this is one of the few issues he has dealt with where there isn’t a gray area and where both sides have some valid arguments.
But ultimately, he called civil marriage a civil rights issue.
“Sometimes one side is just wrong,” Henry said.
Follow North Baltimore Patch on Facebook and Twitter.
The council passed the resolution sponsored by Henry in 2008, but only after it became apparent the state legislature would not approve legislation allowing civil marriage for gays and lesbians.
This time, the resolution, which is sponsored by Kraft, is on track to be passed by the council before the General Assembly decides on gay marriage bills.
Committee members Henry, Kraft, Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke and Councilman Robert Curran all voted to move the legislation forward. The city’s resolution supporting gay marriage is scheduled to go before the full City Council on Jan. 23.
The resolution is expected to pass as it has 10 co-sponsors out of 14 council members, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has spoken out in favor of same-sex civil marriage. Neither Councilwoman Rochelle “Rikki” Spector nor Councilman Carl Stokes, who represent parts of North Baltimore, are listed as sponsors. Councilman Warren Branch and Councilwoman Helen Holton also are not sponsors.
LRL
3:22 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
Baltimore isn't the issue, it's the Eastern Shore and southern and western Maryland where people have never met anyone who wasn't exactly like them (white, Christian, heterosexual, etc.) and who didn't believe that law should be made based upon the Bible. We saw this last legislative session with representatives and citizens and "experts" giving testimony.
Richard Cook
9:51 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
I hope and expect Maryland will come out in the right place on same-sex marriage - in support of inclusion, acceptance and respect for individuals, to freely chose their life partners. As Father Mike Tegeder (Minneapolis) said, recently, "We should not be focused on beating up a small number of people who have this desire to have committed relationships."
ralahinn1
12:32 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
I am not against anyone who feels compelled to have a live partner the chance to get one, I object to same-sex marriage being called a marriage. There should be another dignified name for such a ceremony. Is there no one in the group, as artistic and educated as a lot of the are, that can not find or make up a word meaning something special for them? I am sure a lot more people would accept the joining of 2 people in a same sex union if such a word could be found
Jessica
7:55 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
why on earth would anyone want "another dignified name for such a ceremony" ? we are not asking for special rights, just equal rights. & I dont see why anyone would call a marriage anything other than just that, a marriage.
Richard Cook
9:38 am on Friday, January 20, 2012
Ralahinn 1,
The right to marry movement is not about "a ceremony." Civil marriage is a civil right. That is what a marriage license is - a right under the civil law to, in this case, sign a mutually binding contract.
Under our federal constitution, some consenting adults cannot be turned away from the court house, while other consenting adults are given this service. Any government that bars some adults from a service which is offered to others must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. Since there is no compelling reason to bar same-sex couples from receiving a service (marriage license) that others receive, same-sex marriage is legal - as the federal courts have found. Initiatives and referendums that run counter will be found un-constitutional.
Any church organization can have more limiting rules and may not be required to perform marriages that run counter to doctrines. Such restrictions do not violate anyone's civil right to take out a marriage license.
But remember, the right to marry civilly is what we are talking about - a government service.
ralahinn1
7:07 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
@ Richard Cook, I wish they had a like button, because your post is a good one. Don't think I am against people making a commitment to each other. One of my first baby sitters was gay, and his boyfriend used to pick him up to take him home. I have been around other gay people in my life, and one of the people I admire is a lesbian named Stephanie, I wish I was more like her. I just wish there was a way where they can have a nice ceremony without controversy or making it look like part of an agenda.