Maryland House passes same-sex marriage bill - Polidicks

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/maryland-house-approves-gay-marriage-measure.html[/url] [quote]ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland House narrowly passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday, delivering a major victory to Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, who had proposed it. But its implementation remained uncertain as its opponents promised to take it to voters in November. [b]The bill, known as the Civil Marriage Protection Act, squeaked by in a 72-to-67 vote, drawing loud applause and cheers from proponents in the House. A similar bill failed in the chamber last year.[/b] [b]The measure still faces a vote in the Senate, where it is expected to pass, before Mr. O’Malley can sign it into law.[/b] But opponents have pledged to put in on the ballot for a vote on Nov. 6, a prospect that the bill’s supporters acknowledge is practically a foregone conclusion. The vote, said Anthony O’Donnell, the Republican minority leader, amounted to “beginning a process, not ending a process. The citizens of Maryland will have the final say.” The debate stretched for hours in the 18th-century, wooden-domed statehouse, and was punctuated by emotional entreaties by supporters of the bill, including several gay and lesbian delegates, who talked about their own lives, and other delegates who invoked Jim Crow laws. “This is the civil rights issue of our generation,” said Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr., a Democrat from Baltimore. “I’m overwhelmed,” Luke Clippinger, one of the seven openly gay members of the Maryland House, said after the vote. “My voice is still breaking.” When asked what the vote meant to him, he said, “It means I’m here.” After the vote, lawmakers who voted for the bill — mostly Democrats — gathered outside the chamber cheering and hugging. Soon after, Mr. O’Malley arrived to congratulate the delegates. He embraced Mr. Clippinger. The bill’s passage would make Maryland the eighth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. It comes a day after New Jersey’s legislature passed a similar bill, though it was vetoed on Friday by Gov. Chris Christie. New York State legalized same-sex marriage last year, and this month Washington State did so. In order to be palatable to delegates who were undecided,[b] the bill was amended so that it would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013, in order to allow the ballot process to take its course. [/b]Though Maryland is heavily Democratic, the party is sharply divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. Of 98 Democrats in the House, as many as 30 — mostly more-conservative Democrats known as Blue Dogs, and African-Americans from districts where churches are strong — had been undecided. The bill’s passage was made possible by two Republicans, three Blue Dogs, and two African-American delegates, none of whom were initially supportive. In interviews, several of those delegates said that a key change from last year that won their support was language protecting religious institutions from being forced to perform marriages. [b]“People believe that it’s a sin for a homosexual to be married, but who are they to judge?” said Robert Costa, one of the Republicans who voted for the bill. “It’s up to God, not government.”[/b] John Olszewski, a Democrat initially opposed, said the religious exemptions made him feel comfortable enough to vote for the bill. “Denying basic rights to folks just isn’t the right thing for us to be doing,” he said. [b]Several delegates said they had been warned by powerful parts of their constituencies that a yes vote would cost them in the next election, scheduled for 2014. Mr. Mitchell said it was a risk he was willing to take.[/b] “I’ve heard all types of threats, that in 2014 at the ballot box, there would be revenge,” he said. “But when that day comes, I know that for the seven openly gay colleagues, if they are able to have the same rights as my wife and I have, then I know that my green vote was the right vote.” [b]Opponents said they were confident they could gather the signatures needed to place it on the ballot, about 55,000. If the referendum is successful, it would effectively repeal the bill.[/b] A Washington Post poll published on Jan. 30 found that 50 percent of Marylanders supported allowing same-sex marriage while 44 percent were opposed. “This will go to the people, and the people will make the decision,” said Pat McDonough, a Republican who voted against. [b]Democrats argued that the bill should not go to a referendum because it is an issue of civil liberties that should not be decided by the majority. They said that integration probably would not have happened if left to a popular vote. [/b] [/quote]

[quote] The vote, said Anthony O’Donnell, the Republican minority leader, amounted to “beginning a process, not ending a process. [B][I]The citizens of Maryland will have the final say.[/I][/B]”[/quote] They just did. The state senators/representatives kinda sorta [I][B][U]represent the people of the state of Maryland.[/U][/B][/I]

Yay, that's my state.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;34757437]They just did. The state senators/representatives kinda sorta [I][B][U]represent the people of the state of Maryland.[/U][/B][/I][/QUOTE] Pft. What's democracy?

[quote]Democrats argued that the bill should not go to a referendum because it is an issue of civil liberties that should not be decided by the majority. They said that integration probably would not have happened if left to a popular vote.[/quote] Spot on.

Maryland: Give us your governor. Love, New Jersey.

Gay Marryland

Same-sex legalization is spreading like wild fire in the past week or two! I'm surprised! But also grateful, except for New Jersy... Rat Bastard.

[quote]“People believe that it’s a sin for a homosexual to be married, but who are they to judge?” said Robert Costa, one of the Republicans who voted for the bill. “It’s up to God, not government.”[/quote]Oh wow, if only more Republicans were like this.

Fabulous

Christ, same-sex marriage seems to be passing in every state lately

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;34757437]They just did. The state senators/representatives kinda sorta [I][B][U]represent the people of the state of Maryland.[/U][/B][/I][/QUOTE] Oh please, this is the same forum that bitched about how America isn't really a democracy. I've no problems with the Government putting a crucial issue like this to an actual statewide vote. It's the barest form of democracy you can have.

[QUOTE=smurfy;34758881]Christ, same-sex marriage seems to be passing in every state lately[/QUOTE] People are slightly gaining in intelligence.

[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;34758423]Same-sex legalization is spreading like wild fire in the past week or two! I'm surprised! But also grateful, except for New Jersy... Rat Bastard.[/QUOTE] Now if we can have the same effect for marijuana legalization.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34759214]Oh please, this is the same forum that bitched about how America isn't really a democracy. I've no problems with the Government putting a crucial issue like this to an actual statewide vote. It's the barest form of democracy you can have.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because tyranny of the majority is perfectly acceptable.

[QUOTE=smurfy;34758881]Christ, same-sex marriage seems to be passing in every state lately[/QUOTE] Yeah, funny thing when generations of people grow up in an environment that's slightly more accepting, and all the stick-in-the-mud bigots literally start dying off... They become better, more rational, more tolerant people than the previous generations. It's the sort of thing that tells me that folks like us will inherit and transform this world for the better. Christians always try telling us how steeped the world has become in evil, assuming their doomsday ideals to be correct. But it's just not true. The world will never be quite free of discrimination, greed, apathy, or hatred, but that doesn't mean we aren't leaps and bounds beyond who we were as a species 100 years ago. Things are better than they've ever been, but that's far from saying we're anywhere near perfect. We've still got a lot of work to do, but I think we're doing a damned fine job so far.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34759214]Oh please, this is the same forum that bitched about how America isn't really a democracy. I've no problems with the Government putting a crucial issue like this to an actual stat/ewide vote. It's the barest form of democracy you can have.[/QUOTE] Well, then what do you propose? You can't let my state that is the most conservative in the country get such power yet you can't trust the Federal Government being able to tell states the completely fuck off either. This is why we need leaders and people raised to live and let live. America should be the land of liberty.

why do the states of the USA all have different laws that's not very "united"

[QUOTE=Bones85;34759434]Yeah, because tyranny of the majority is perfectly acceptable.[/QUOTE] This is essentially what congress is anyway, which side has the most people agreeing with them. And that side will always win over the other side. It's the exact same thing, just on a smaller scale.

[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;34759861]why do the states of the USA all have different laws that's not very "united"[/QUOTE]Tenth amendment.

[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;34759861]why do the states of the USA all have different laws that's not very "united"[/QUOTE] When the country was first founded, we were just colonies that broke away from Britain because we felt they had too much power. The founding fathers really did not want the federal government to have too much power and wanted all the states to have equal say in what our country does. At first, the governing document that explained how the country pretty much was going to work out was the Articles of Confederation, which gave the states far more power than the federal government. That didn't work so the US Constitution was made, which basically equally divided power among the states and the federal government so the states could govern themselves while still being considered part of the same country and following laws made by the federal government. Marriage is one of the things that was left to the states to decide for themselves, which is good because the dominant opinion of marriage varies a lot between states. The way I see it, if this was left to the federal government, then there would be way too much debate and I doubt any legislation relating to marriage would be passed. Basically: The founding fathers were really scared of the federal government having way too much power.

[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;34759861]why do the states of the USA all have different laws that's not very "united"[/QUOTE] The United States were originally essentially separate countries with a common currency, military, and foreign policy. But this has changed as the federal government gains more and more power. Now the states are more like regional governing bodies, but there aren't that many laws that differ between states. Gay marriage and gun control are the issues that vary the most between them.

[QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;34759861]why do the states of the USA all have different laws that's not very "united"[/QUOTE] Saw this exact post a few days ago, wtf

I wonder when Texas and Wyoming will legalize, if ever.

[QUOTE=Priori;34760118]I wonder when Texas and Wyoming will legalize, if ever.[/QUOTE] Wyoming will at some point, but it'll be a longer time until Texas does.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34759884]This is essentially what congress is anyway, which side has the most people agreeing with them. And that side will always win over the other side. It's the exact same thing, just on a smaller scale.[/QUOTE] No, it's NOT the same thing. You can vote in/out representatives, but if you have the citizens voting on an issue like this, tyranny of the majority is applicable. It's absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to allow citizens to trample over someone's civil liberties like that.

[QUOTE=Bones85;34760330]No, it's NOT the same thing. You can vote in/out representatives, but if you have the citizens voting on an issue like this, tyranny of the majority is applicable. It's absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to allow citizens to trample over someone's civil liberties like that.[/QUOTE] What if the vote had failed in the Maryland house? Would you accept those results, or would it be right back to the "tyranny of the majority" argument? I really don't think you care about either way, as long as it passes.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760396]What if the vote had failed in the Maryland house? Would you accept those results, or would it be right back to the "tyranny of the majority" argument?[/QUOTE] I'd say that anyone who voted against the bill should be voted out. [QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760396]I really don't think you care about either way, as long as it passes.[/QUOTE] You act like it's a bad thing that I care about it passing.

[QUOTE=The golden;34758505]And it'll only go so far. Good luck getting any of the southern states to budge an inch.[/QUOTE] Fuck the southern states. Swing a generation where the north has it and then finish the job on the federal level.

[QUOTE=Bones85;34760441]I'd say that anyone who voted against the bill should be voted out. [/QUOTE] And that's your opinion. But it's idiotic to go bitching about the "tyranny of the majority!" when the system is working exactly as it was designed to do. Welcome to democracy. [QUOTE=Bones85;34760441]You act like it's a bad thing that I care about it passing. [/QUOTE] I completely support the bill, but it's up to the voters of Maryland to decide. Not you.