News on Marriage Equality, Local and National

I don't subscribe to any politicians' newsletters, but I know people who do, and sometimes they send me some good stuff. Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno sent out an email yesterday that has some important news:

Today was another important day for marriage equality in Maryland. I am pleased to report two new cosponsors of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act: Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Bethesda) and Sen. Bobby Zirkin (D-Pikesville). We are continuing to gain momentum.

Today was also the hearing on House Bill 90, introduced by Delegate Emmett Burns (D-Catonsville), that would bar Maryland from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Del. Burns introduced this bill to preempt the opinion I requested of Attorney General Doug Gansler on whether our state would recognize these marriages. As you have probably read, Maryland has historically recognized marriages from other states, even if those marriages could not have been performed in our state.

Opponents of marriage equality stated that polygamous marriages and marriages between closely related family members have long been prohibited from being recognized in our state on the grounds that they are “abhorrent” to public policy of the state. They tried in vain today to make the case that our marriages and relationships are equally abhorrent, but the legislature’s actions through the years to grant rights to same-sex couples legally invalidate this position. Our modest domestic partner protections clearly show that Maryland has an interest in supporting same-sex marriages and it was our work as legislators and your work as advocates that set up the framework for our arguments today.

We will continue to fight the mean spirited efforts of our opponents which were on full display at the hearing. Del. Don Dwyer (R-Glen Burnie) went so far as to imply that if Doug Gansler issued a positive opinion that he would be in violation of his oath of office! While we still have no word on the Attorney General’s opinion, I am confident we are closer than ever to having a mechanism for marriage equality in Maryland.

There is no reasonable argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry, and lots of reasons it is a good idea. Stigmatizing gays won't make them straight, there is nothing to gain by denying committed gay couples the same rights that committed straight couples enjoy.

Madaleno suggests two openings here. First, Maryland recognizes heterosexual marriages from other states, even if those marriages could not have been performed here. Maybe the couple was of legal age in their home state, but too young here, we still recognize that marriage as legal. Second, Maryland gives some protection to same-sex domestic partners, and that does suggest that the state agrees there is something special in those relationships, something deserving legal recognition, the same quality that distinguishes married couples.

Interesting to see what's happening with Proposition 8 in California. As Shannon Minter at Pam's House Blend wrote this week:

It has been an amazing two and a half weeks. This trial has been a truly historic moment for our community. It is the first time a federal court has heard, first hand, from real live witnesses, about the harm that the denial of marriage equality causes lesbians, gay men and their families every day. It's also the first time a federal court has heard the arguments in favor of marriage equality presented live in court by an array of internationally renowned scholars who are truly experts in their respective fields.

What stands out the most after having seen all the witnesses on both sides is how overwhelmingly one-sided the evidence in this case turned out to be. The plaintiffs, represented by some of the most skilled attorneys in the country, laid out a well-crafted, meticulous case, backed by the testimony of half a dozen of the most respected historians, psychologists, economists, and political scientists who study marriage, sexual orientation, and child development. Using the Prop 8 proponents' own outrageous and inflammatory words, ads, and emails, the plaintiffs powerfully demonstrated that Prop 8 was a direct product of hostility, fear-mongering, and demonization of lesbians and gay men. And through the deeply moving testimony of the plaintiffs and other members of our community, they proved beyond question that denying same-sex couples the right to marry causes great harm to LGBT people and their children.

Stacked up against this mountain of facts, scholarship, and science, the Prop 8 proponents - though represented by fine attorneys - were not able to come forward with a case of their own. Before trial, they dropped nearly every witness they had planned to present and relied entirely on two poorly qualified, ill-prepared expert witnesses, neither of whom was able to establish that banning same-sex couples from getting married has any rational or legitimate purpose relating to procreation, child rearing, tradition, or any of the other justifications that have been offered in the past in support of anti-gay discrimination. In fact, nearly all of the defendants' experts agreed with the plaintiffs that marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples and their families in many real, tangible ways.

There is no argument for banning marriage between two individuals of the same sex, other than bigotry, or as Minter put it, "hostility, fear-mongering, and demonization of lesbians and gay men." The people of California might have been persuaded to vote against allowing it, but the mob is not allowed to rule lawlessly, our way of government includes measures to protect the rights of minorities and underprivileged individuals. As we noted recently, groups like the Alliance Defense Fund exist solely to force the the majority's will on minorities. Gay and lesbian citizens are definitely a minority and always will be, in this country we respect their rights, whether we personally approve or not. News from Madaleno is encouraging, and we hope that Minter's analysis is in line with the way the court sees it.