Anti-gay union bill lights up hearing

Raucous debate over amendment

February 01, 2006|By KELLY BREWINGTON | KELLY BREWINGTON,SUN REPORTER

With a fiery debate that invoked God and civil rights, supporters and opponents of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions in Maryland squared off yesterday in what has become one of the most politicized issues of the General Assembly session.

Proponents of the bill, including religious leaders and conservative organizations, argued that it would allow Marylanders to vote on what some called the most important issue of a generation. Those opposed, including civil rights advocates, other clergy and constitutional law professors, warned a House of Delegates committee that the measure would codify discrimination.

Robert P. Duckworth, the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court clerk, told the panel that if the legislature did not act to allow a constitutional amendment, it would open the door to polygamy and marriage between siblings, eliciting cheers from many in the audience who wore red, white and blue "Let Us Vote" ribbons.

"If same-sex marriage becomes law in Maryland, I will refuse to perform such ceremonies," said Duckworth, a Republican, during the more than five-hour hearing before an often-raucous crowd. "Marylanders deserve this constitutional amendment on this ballot. The only way to protect the institution of marriage is though such an amendment."

The Rev. John Crestwell of Davies Memorial Unitarian Universalist Church in Camp Springs, who is opposed to the amendment, accused the measure's supporters of turning the argument into a populist movement to impose religion on the Constitution.

"I read somewhere of the separation between church and state," Crestwell said. "The two can never become one. When you mix the word of God with partisan zeal, it's disastrous and that's what's going on here."

The issue of same-sex unions was propelled into the political fray two weeks ago when a Baltimore circuit judge ruled that Maryland's law defining marriage between a man and a woman was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Judge M. Brooke Murdock stayed her ruling pending an appeal, which was immediately filed by the state attorney general's office.

The ruling sparked immediate friction between lawmakers, with perennial opponents of same-sex marriage - mainly Republicans - vowing to bring a debate on a constitutional amendment to the House floor. Many Democrats, meanwhile, are urging fellow lawmakers to delay legislative action until an appeals court rules.

Both sides have an eye on the November elections. If a constitutional amendment appears on the fall ballot, conservative voters who tend to favor Republican candidates could be motivated to go to the polls in greater numbers, political experts say, providing a potential boost to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., who is seeking re-election. But other observers believe that left-leaning voters could be similarly motivated to protect what they view as civil liberties, weakening the GOP advantage.

Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel Republican who said at the hearing that gay men and lesbians can change their sexual orientation, sponsored the bill that would place a proposed amendment on the fall ballot. He said he will try to force a vote on the House floor even if the Judiciary Committee rejects the measure. Committee members said they are likely to vote on the measure tomorrow.

"Unfortunately for me, the Democrats are using every maneuver to keep this off the floor and away from the ballot," Dwyer said.

The tactics Dwyer and other Republicans are contemplating are rare and contentious - and could dominate House debate this week.

Kathryn M. Rowe, an assistant attorney general who advises the General Assembly, said House rules contain a procedure that allows a bill rejected by a committee to be brought to the floor for full consideration with a majority vote of the chamber.

But she said House speakers have stopped using the tactic in recent years. Del. Anthony G. Brown, the Democratic whip from Prince George's County, said the approach makes House business less efficient.

"It is an extraordinary measure that, if abused, renders the House less effective in conducting its business," he said.

Still, Ehrlich endorsed the tactical maneuver on Monday, when he issued a statement urging lawmakers to debate the proposed amendment on the floor, a departure from his remarks two weeks earlier in which he stated that he preferred to wait for an appeal's court to rule before taking a position on a constitutional amendment.

With rumors swirling yesterday that the Democrat-controlled House committee was considering voting on the amendment late last night - killing it after advocates on both sides went home - Ehrlich said he issued the statement because he didn't want public discussion to be cut off.

"This is an issue of overwhelming public importance," he said.

Added Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell, the Republican whip from Southern Maryland: "We don't want this thing voted on in the dark of night."

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.