POSTED: 1:51 pm EST January 31, 2012
UPDATED: 5:32 pm EST January 31, 2012

From WBAL TV 11 News
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The debate over legally recognizing same sex marriage in Maryland took center stage Tuesday, as those for and against the legislation filled a Senate committee room for a marathon hearing on the issue.

11 News reporter David Collins said it’s just the beginning of the legislative process for same sex marriage. Those testifying Tuesday in favor included Gov. Martin O’Malley, the state attorney general and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

Collins said those in favor of legalizing same sex marriage and those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman came out in equal numbers.
“We are not simply concerned about protecting religious institutions,” said Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference. “We’re concerned about the impact redefining marriage has on all society.”

A new Washington Post poll found that 50 percent of those surveyed support same sex marriage, and 44 percent are opposed. Speakers at Tuesday’s hearing got two minutes each, and Collins said the hearing was expected to last four hours.

Collins said so many people attended the hearing that an overflow room had to be used.

The Civil Marriage Protection Act tops O’Malley’s legislative agenda, and he was the first witness to testify Tuesday.
“We all want the same thing for our children, the opportunity for the love, caring, committed and stable homes, protected equally under the law,” O’Malley said.

The governor was asked to explain the difference between his bill and last year’s version.

This year’s bill extends legal protections to religious leaders. Last year’s version only shielded institutions. The new bill clarifies language stating that religious leaders, and not the state, control theological doctrine. It also further limits punitive actions against religious organizations for failing to perform same sex marriages.

Collins said that Sen. Nancy Jacobs made reference Tuesday to Judge Katie O’Malley’s comments calling those who changed their mind in support of same sex marriage last year “cowards.” The first lady made the comment last week, and apologized the next day.

Meanwhile, Rawlings-Blake said, “All couples, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve the same legal protection under the law.”

Sen. Allan Kittleman, a Republican representing Howard County, said, “You can’t take away someone’s civil rights because of something that might happen. You can deal with the mights later on. But make sure we get the civil rights down now.”

Many in the faith community sees the issue as a moral one, Collins reported.

“We are talking about two essentially different things when we talk about marriage between a man and a woman and any other relationship,” Russell said.

More On Washington Post Poll

The poll released Monday found that 50 percent of residents favor same sex marriage and 44 percent are opposed. The newspaper reported that’s the highest recorded level of support in Maryland in a Post poll.

The poll found a divide among Maryland Democrats based on race. For whites, 71 percent were found to support same sex marriage, while 24 percent oppose it. Among blacks, 41 percent support it, while 53 percent oppose it.

The poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 23-26 among a random sample of 1,064 Maryland adults. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Previous Stories:

• January 31, 2012: Protesters Rally Against Gay Marriage Bill
• January 27, 2012: NAACP President Delivers LGBT Conference Keynote
• January 26, 2012: LGBT Rights Advocates Gather In Baltimore
• January 24, 2012: O’Malley Hosts Meeting With Gay Marriage Backers
• January 24, 2012: Maryland Gov. Unveils Legislative Agenda
• January 13, 2012: Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Hashing Out New Bill

http://www.wbaltv.com/politics/30341056/detail.html

Advocates, opponents offer testimony to Senate committee

by Daniel leaderman, Staff Writer, Gazette.Net, Tuesday, January 31, 2012

A proposal to allow same-sex marriage in Maryland protects churches and faith-based organizations, said Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who lobbied for his bill before a state Senate committee Tuesday.

“This bill balances equal protection of individual civil marriage rights with the important protection of religious freedom for all,” O’Malley said.

O’Malley’s proposal is a retooled version of legislation that he introduced last year, which narrowly passed the Senate but failed in the House of Delegates. This year’s version contains additional language to exempt religious organizations having to provide services to same-sex couples.

O’Malley was joined in the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee by a bipartisan panel of lawmakers, including Sens. Richard Madaleno (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington, Allen Kittleman (R-Dist. 9) of West Friendship and Jamie Raskin (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park.

Raskin, a constitutional lawyer, said the purpose of the legislation was to ensure equal protection under the law, but also to keep churches from being forced to comply with provisions that violate their faith.

A Knights of Columbus hall, for example, would not have to rent to a same-sex couple, Raskin said.

Lawmakers testified before a packed committee room, and a second room had to be opened to accommodate the overflow of supporters and opponents.

Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Dist. 34) of Abingdon asked O’Malley his opinion of supporters of traditional marriage, stating that there had been recent commentary on the issue that wasn’t beneficial to the legislative process.

O’Malley’s wife, Katie, came under fire this past week for referring to some legislators who voted against last year’s bill as “cowards.”

O’Malley replied that supporters of traditional marriage, whether motivated by religious belief or not, had a right to their belief.

The committee hearing was expected to last as long as four hours, with testimony limited to two hours per side.

dleaderman@gazette.net

http://www.gazette.net/article/20120131/NEWS/701319967/1124/o-malley-touts-religious-protections-in-same-sex-marriage-bill&template=gazette

Wednesday – 2/1/2012, 12:28pm  ET

Kate Ryan, wtop.com

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley testified in favor of same sex marriage at a hearing in Annapolis on Tuesday.

“It’s not right, and it is not just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protections than the children of other families in our state,” O’Malley told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

O’Malley sponsored the legislation granting marriage equality to gay couples.

But, in a clear effort to allay the fears and concerns of the religious community, he added, “Nor would it be right to force religious institutions to conduct marriages that conflict with their own beliefs and their own teachings.”

O’Malley and his wife, Katie O’Malley, spent part of the weekend backtracking from her recent comments calling some of the lawmakers “cowards” who failed to support same sex marriage vote last year.

Her comment wasn’t forgotten by the Rev. Robert J. Borger, with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Annapolis, who referred to it when he said, “A coward runs from a fight. We will not run from this fight.”

The O’Malley administration cites bipartisan support for the bill, and Republican Alan Kittleman, a senator whose district includes parts of Howard and Carroll counties, said he was reminded of his father who fought for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s.

“It changed me — it changed me for life,” Kittleman says.

He continued, saying he believes the fight for same sex marriage is similar, “because I really do believe it’s about freedom. I believe it’s about liberty, it’s about equality.”

The Rev. John Lunn, of the Berean Baptist Church in Baltimore, took issue with that.

“It is not a civil rights issue. I did not choose the color I was born, but I can choose my sexual preference,” he said, to which several people in the packed hearing room declared, “Amen.”

One man told the Senate panel he and the woman he wants to marry will delay their wedding until gay marriage is allowed in Maryland, to which Sen. Jamin Raskin replied, “Are you saying that if gay marriage is allowed in Maryland there will be more straight marriages?”

Senate President Mike Miller has said he wants a vote on the issue sooner than later in the session. It’s possible the Senate panel could vote on SB 241 by next week, and a vote in the full chamber could follow a week later.

It’s not clear how the bill will fare in the House, where it was pulled from the floor at the very last minute when it was clear the support was collapsing.

Katie O’Malley’s recent comments made for some backtracking this weekend — she issued an immediate apology –and one House lawmaker told WTOP while her comments didn’t help, they wouldn’t necessarily sink the bill either.

Follow Kate Ryan and WTOP on Twitter.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=46&sid=2729562

By John Wagner, Washington Post, Published: January 31

Same-sex marriage supporters, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, squared off Tuesday in a lengthy legislative hearing against ministers and others who urged that the state not abandon its tradition of limiting nuptials to one man and one woman.

O’Malley (D), who has vowed to pass legislation along the lines of a bill that fell short last year, said the issue is about “human dignity” and asked state senators to view it through the eyes of children.

“It’s not right, and it is not just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protections than the other children of our state,” O’Malley told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, the first panel to consider his legislation this year.

During a packed hearing that stretched more than four hours, opponents argued that the legislation is an affront to their religious sensibilities and that reworked “religious exemptions” included in O’Malley’s bill are still insufficient to protect their rights.

“This is a fight we will not run from,” said Robert J. Borger, pastor of Annapolis Evangelical Presbyterian Church, saying that gay unions are “not rooted in natural law.”

The Senate narrowly passed a similar bill last year that O’Malley did not sponsor, and the chamber is widely expected to approve this year’s bill. The drama during the 90-day session will come in the House of Delegates, where last year’s bill failed and no lawmakers have announced a change in position.

A Washington Post poll published this week found that half of Marylanders now favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, although support varies considerably along the sensitive lines of race, religion and age.

O’Malley was joined in his advocacy Tuesday by several other leading Maryland politicians. Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) called passage of the bill “a moral imperative.” Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) said it was “long overdue.”

Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery) spoke in personal terms, telling colleagues “I don’t know why people fall in love” but that he and his male partner are now a family that includes children.

Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, the only Republican legislator to support last year’s bill, also testified, asking that his colleagues set aside concerns of potential negative consequences suggested by opponents.

“You don’t take away someone’s civil rights because of what might happen,” said Kittleman (R-Howard).

Bill supporters included several religious leaders, but clergy members played a greater role in making the case against the legislation.

The Rev. Joel R. Peebles, pastor of Jericho City of Praise in Landover, testified with his wife of 18 years standing beside him and told senators that they have four children.

“None of us, not one of us, would be here if not for a relationship between a man and a woman,” Peebles said.

Derek McCoy, president of Maryland Family Alliance, a group lobbying against the bill, echoed that point and asked senators to “hear the voices of the people.” He was referring in part to a rally Monday night that drew a few hundred bill opponents to Annapolis.

Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the Maryland Catholic Conference, was among those who argued Tuesday that unions of same-sex couples are not traditional marriages.

“We can’t equate things that are not the same,” Russell said.

If the goal is to provide equal protections under the law, she asked senators, then why not approve civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage?

Russell later acknowledged that it was unclear whether her organization would support legalization of civil unions, either, noting that the Catholic Church has opposed them in other states.

Several speakers questioned whether legal protections included in O’Malley’s bill are sufficient to protect religious groups that do not believe in gay unions.

The bill makes clear that religious leaders are not required to officiate at same-sex marriages if that conflicts with their doctrine.

Brian W. Raum, senior counsel at the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, argued that protections should be extended to businesses, such as wedding planners, who do not believe in gay nuptials.

In arguing against Raum and others, Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery) said that lawmakers should not turn back the clock on existing anti-discrimination measures in Maryland law.

Under current law, Raskin noted, businesses that provide “public accommodations” cannot discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a customer.

“We’ve already driven over that bridge,” Raskin said.

Separately Tuesday, during an appearance at a prayer breakfast with supportive clergy, House Speaker Michael E. Busch said the push for legalizing same-sex marriage is “clearly an issue of civil rights.”

Busch (D-Anne Arundel) came to support that position during last year’s debate on the issue, but the prayer breakfast in Annapolis marked the first time he had spoken out as forcefully in such a setting.

A number of Busch’s colleagues who support the bill have privately said they would like to see more vocal support on his part.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/supporters-opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-bill-square-off-at-md-legislative-hearing/2012/01/31/gIQAlIxLgQ_story.html

By Phil Reese – Washington Blade on January 31, 2012

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Over the course of four hours on Tuesday, opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage delivered compelling testimony before a Maryland Senate committee in hopes of swaying lawmakers on a landmark bill.

The Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony on the Civil Marriage Protection Act throughout the afternoon on the last day of January, as lawmakers, experts, clergy and regular citizens from both sides of the issue shared their feelings on the bill at two minutes a piece.

Gaithersburg resident Stephanie Kreps arrived early to the hearing, proudly wearing a ‘Marylanders for Marriage Equality’ sticker to show her support for the bill as the mother of a gay son.

“It’s simple to me,” Kreps told the Blade. “I have rights that my gay son doesn’t have, and I want those rights for him and all other gay people.”

Kreps was looking forward to hearing the testimony of the bill’s supporters and said she was hopeful for the bill’s prospects considering the Governor’s support this year, and the growing trend toward supporting marriage for same-sex couples in Maryland.

The first witness to testify in favor of the bill was Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has made the bill part of his 2012 legislative agenda. O’Malley, who had at one time hesitated to support extending full marriage rights to gay couples, has become a proponent of the legislation.

“As you know we already recognize civil marriages that come from other states,” Gov. O’Malley said during his brief testimony, “the civil marriage equality bill draws upon the lessons that we have learned from these other states.”

“This bill balances an individual’s civil marriage rights with the important protections of religious freedoms for all,” O’Malley continued. “And because it protects both of these inalienable rights, it is supported by a broad coalition of Marylanders, which includes clergy, community leaders, faith-based organizations, civil rights groups and those who hold the most important title of all in our democracy, and that title is citizen.”

O’Malley was followed by gay Sen. Richard Madaleno who spoke from the heart about his love for his partner and raising a child, and relayed a story about a walk with his young daughter that expressed the very essence of family.

“We were picking flowers along the way, and she was picking buttercups and dandelions,” Madaleno said. “As she picked a few of the flowers, and went on to pick more, she handed me a little bouquet, and said ‘daddy will you hold my wishes for me?’” When he asked her what she meant, she explained. “She said ‘This is a wishing flower, you blow on it, and you see where your wishes go.’”

“I don’t know why people fall in love, I don’t know exactly why I have fallen in love with Mark as opposed to someone else, but I have, and together we have formed a family, and that family includes children.”

Following Madaleno were Democratic Sens. Jamie Raskin and Robert Garagiola and Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman, as well as Attorney General Douglas Gansler (video below courtesy GoodAsYou), all of whom urged passage of the bill.

Kittleman, who spoke about his father’s work in the civil rights movement, said he feels so strongly about the legislation because “I really do believe it’s about family, it’s about liberty, it’s about equality.”

“I remember my dad telling me years later that when he was fighting for the civil rights movement, and integration in the public schools in Howard County, and he was talking to people who were opposed to it, especially school board members, the would say things like ‘but you don’t know what will happen if we accept African Americans. Here’s what might happen. They’re going to do this in the hallway,’ or ‘they’ll do this in the classroom,’ or ‘they’ll cause this problem.’ Always ‘might be this’ or ‘might be that.’ What I’m urging you is don’t succumb to the mights. What my father taught me is that you don’t take away someone’s civil rights because of something that might happen. You can deal with the ‘mights’ later on. But make sure we get the civil rights done now. Make sure we get that equality for everyone in our community now.”

“You don’t say no to civil rights because you’re worried about what might happen in the future,” Kittleman concluded.

Raskin, for his part, strongly defended the religious protections in the bill, confirming that churches and church sponsored and operated facilities would be exempt from having to “lend any of its accommodations, programs, or services for the purpose of promoting a marriage it disapproves of for religious reasons.”

However, Raskin was quick to differentiate religious groups and private individuals or businesses, who have been barred in law since 2001 from discriminating against Marylanders in public accommodation because of sexual orientation.

Also testifying in favor of the bill was Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

“I believe that all couples regardless of their sexual orientation, want their children protected under the law,” Rawlings-Blake testified. “Please don’t be mistaken, this bill is about more than those rights, it’s also about civil rights and about equality under the law.”

Both sides were given two hours each to present their witnesses in four parts — the first and third hours in support of the law, and the second and fourth in opposition.

All told, more than 75 citizens delivered testimony both for and against the bill over a period of four and a half hours. Opposition to the bill ran from the colorful — like local same-sex marriage hearing mainstay Minister Leroy Swailes, who produced groans even from other opponents of the bill — to the passionate; while support ran from the clinically factual to the deeply moving — such as the ardently supportive mother of a lesbian daughter, Penny Nichols.

The supporters also included dozens of same-sex couples raising children, parents of gay children and straight children raised by same-sex couples, all in an attempt to counter arguments by the opposition that same-sex marriage would be detrimental to the development of children in Maryland.

Also testifying in support of the law in the first hour were gay veteran and law enforcement officer Irene Huskens of Fort Washington; president of the Maryland AFL-CIO union, and father of a gay child, Fred Mason; gay federal worker and long-time Maryland resident Candy Holmes; supportive Unitarian-Universalist minister Rev. John Crestwell; and David Rocah, staff attorney at the ACLU of Maryland.

One of the questions that Rocah fielded from committee member Sen. Joseph M. Getty after his testimony dealt with whether the law discriminates against close family members that wish to marry “because of genetics, and the familial relationship is because of genetic relationships.”

“It’s long-standing policy in Maryland to prohibit marriage between people of a particular familial relation,” Rocah answered. “They don’t all relate with genetics. Maryland has prohibited relationships between stepfathers or stepmothers, they’re not genetically related. Different states have different degrees of familial relationships in which marriage is prohibited. I don’t see the issue of discrimination that you’re referring to.”

Both the hearing room itself and an overflow room were filled to capacity through much of the hearing, producing an electric and anxious atmosphere among those in attendance. Same-sex marriage supporters sat next to opponents, making it difficult in many cases to distinguish who was there in favor of and who was there against. Most in attendance could only be differentiated by the round stickers given out by both the proponents and opponents — which themselves were similar in shape, size and coloring.

Among those in the audience in opposition to the bill was Maryland resident Ruby Wilson who says she has concerns about the bill because she believes it will harm children.

“I believe children are being affected already in Massachusetts with the bill that’s there,” Wilson — who says as a Catholic she does not believe gays should adopt children — told the Blade. “In the fifth grade they’re given a book …and it tells all the ways that you can enjoy yourself as a homosexual. I don’t want my grandchildren to have that.”

“Also they said that there’s going to be a conscience clause in this bill for Christians,” Wilson continued. “Well, they just take that to court, and the courts just take it out. And then where are we at? We just have no protection.”

“I’m totally against it,” Wilson said, though she is not opposed to civil unions for same-sex couples. “I’m just opposed to redefining marriage.”

Wilson’s feelings about “redefining marriage” were echoed by Maryland resident Edna Kersey.

“I think that traditionally that is what marriage defines, is a man and a woman, and I feel that they should find another term for the same-sex marriage, or the same-sex union, so that it not tamper with the name that we so long stood on,” Kersey told the Blade. “That’s what our foundation is built on, the tradition marriage, which is between a man and a woman. So its not the union itself, it is the name or the title that they are trying to change.”

However, Kersey tells the Blade that she is not in support of Civil Unions, unlike Wilson.

In the second hour, the opposition first presented Maryland Family Alliance president Pastor Dereck McCoy, who set a cordial, respectful tone.

“Regardless of the tenuous debate that we’re in,” McCoy said, “I think we need to understand that Marylanders are separated on this issue, but it’s a deep and passionate thing in the root and the heart of the communities and many people’s lives.”

However, regardless of the result of the vote, McCoy said the definition of marriage would not change for opponents. “People will still feel that marriage should be defined as one man, and one woman. That does not change.”

Following McCoy was Maryland Baptist ministers Rev. Dr. John Lund, and Rev. Dr. Nate Thomas, as well as Presbyterian pastor Bob Borger, former mega-church pastor Joel Peebles — who recently lost a court battle over control over his Jericho City of Praise Ministry — as well as some Catholic voices such as Pastor of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Father Eric Arnold, and Maryland Catholic Conference’s Mary Ellen Russell.

“Among those who testified last year, there were some who seemed to bring hatred and prejudice into the hearing,” said Father Arnold. “In fact, the Baltimore Sun reported that at least one Senator changed his stance on the bill because of the demonization that he sensed in some of the testimony. So as I speak to you today, I ask you to please not lump my testimony in with those who may be driven by hatred or prejudice.”

Father Arnold assured the committee that he, and many of those testifying with him, were there with good will.

“We are here today simply to speak on behalf of the wonderful and unique institution of marriage as it exists in between one man and one woman,” he continued, saying that preferring such unions was ‘not prejudice.’ “We ask you to recognize that the family based on a marriage of a man and a woman is a natural institution that is prior to the state.”

Mary Ellen Russell, in the adjacent audio file, seemed to come out both in favor and against civil unions during her testimony (hear her testimony at GoodAsYou.org).

The testimony was concluded by an attorney specializing in representing churches and ministers, Erika Cole, the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty’s Eric Baxter, and the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund’s Brian Raum (hear his testimony at ThinkProgress.org).

Several times throughout the proceedings — both the hearing room and the overflow room where the testimony was projected upon two large screens at the fore of the room — parts of the audience erupted into cheers and applause in response to testimony given, often soliciting a stern reminder from committee chair Sen. Brian E. Frosh that for the sake of time, applause was to be held until the end, in recognition of the number of witnesses to get through.

Leading the supporters of the bill to testify in the third hour were the Human Rights Campaign’s Sarah Warbelow, who gave a statement about the way same-sex couples in Maryland were treated unequally in terms of property ownership, child rearing, healthcare and inheritance.

“Hundreds of laws cover the benefits, rights, and obligations of spouses,” Warbelow told the committee. “When same-sex couples cannot participate in marriage, their families are more vulnerable.”

Following Warbelow were Baltimore Presbyterian pastor Andrew Foster Connors, Baltimore’s Rabbi Elyssa Sachs Kohen, Doug Prouty of the Montgomery County Education Association, Henry Dugan president of the Maryland State Bar Association, along with State Bar member Craig Little, Daphne Mcclellan executive director of the National Association of Social Workers Maryland chapter, Rev. Madeleine Beard coordinator of public policy for the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, MCC Bishop Rev. Darlene Garner and Rev. Jill McCrory Chair of Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists.

They were joined by social workers and radio hosts Bob and Lori Hollander, Progressive Maryland Interim Executive Director Kate Planco Waybright, and Ezekiel Jackson political organizer for 1199 SEIU, who said, “as a heterosexual African American man, I’m here for equality.”

Opposition in the fourth hour brought some of the most curious testimony of the day. Openly gay father Doug Mainware lamented the lack of a mother in the lives of his children, and cited his conservative beliefs and “thinking deeply about this issue in a reasoned way,” as impetus for coming to oppose the bill after previously supporting it. Senator Raskin, intrigued by the curiosity of the situation, asked Mainware, “how do you undermine an institution by bringing more people into it?”

Mainware believes that the term belongs specifically to the union between a man and a woman, but did admit he is not opposed to civil unions.

Mainware was followed by a cordial Rob Lucas and anti-gay group MassResistance’s Brian Camenker, who warned lawmakers that parents will lose control over what children are taught in school if marriage is extended to same-sex couples, and even warned about a particular case, frequently cited by same-sex marriage foes, in which David Parker was arrested for opposing a pro-gay curriculum in his child’s school.

Also opposing in the fourth hour were Pastor Victor Kirk, Maryland Gubernatorial candidate Corrogan Vaughn, Ruth Jacobs, Silver Springs pastor Robert Nelson, leader of Maryland Marriage Savers Mike McManus, Pierre Bynum, Chaplain at the Family Research Council, Martha and Ed Jenkins, Todd Braun, the colorful Minister Leroy Swailes, and Grace Harley who opposes the bill but — after reciting from the biblical book of Matthew — proclaimed, “I once lived as a man, I once married a woman in 1978, I’ve been before you many times.”

After the final round of opponents, several prominent supporters were able to give their testimony, including Kate Oliver of the group COLLAGE which brings together the children of gay parents, Rev. Lisa Ward, Liz Seaton of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Rev. MacArthur Flournoy who had led the clergy rally earlier in the day, president of the Maryland Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Mark Yost and Episcopal priest Rev. Kathleen Corbet Welsh, a happily partnered lesbian for many decades.

Among these prominent voices was Equality Maryland executive director Carrie Evans, who echoed the sentiments of all of the heartfelt statements that had preceded hers.

“Today you have heard from individuals and families who represent the wonderful and cherished diversity of our great state,” Evans told the committee. “Each person has shared the sometimes personal and touching reasons why you should vote to end marriage discrimination.”

Also in this group was memorable mother of a lesbian daughter at Drexel University, Penny Nichols, who proclaimed “As a devoted mother, I knew my daughter was gay since the second grade.”

“When she finally said to me at the age of 16, ‘mom I’m gay,’ I shocked her with my response, for I hugged my daughter, and I said ‘I’m so proud of you for being your authentic self,” Nichols said. “I want my lesbian daughter to live in a just world.”

“The only obstacle my lesbian daughter should face is her mother’s rule that she cannot marry until after she receives her degrees,” Nichols continued. “I am not gay, but I birthed a gay daughter. I don’t know who’s louder or prouder — she or I — but I will tell you, I think I am outer and prouder!”

After the completion of the last supporters, the committee agreed to exhaust the speaker’s list by giving those remaining — both supporting and opposing — one minute each to add their own testimony.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/md-senate-hearing-on-marriage-draws-hundreds/

Says marriage bill provides stability

By David Hill – The Washington Times, Tuesday, January 31, 2012

ANNAPOLIS — Gov. Martin O’Malley took his same-sex-marriage bill before a Senate committee Tuesday and touted the legislation as a way to bring stability for gay couples and their children without infringing on others’ religious beliefs.

Mr. O’Malley, a Democrat, testified for about five minutes in the four-hour hearing, which featured arguments for and against his bill, which would make Maryland the seventh state to legalize gay marriage.

The governor emphasized the bill’s protections, which he said would absolve religious institutions and faith-based groups from having to perform or condone gay weddings and said it would give gay households many property, medical and custodial rights now offered only to heterosexual couples.

“We all want the same things for our children,” Mr. O’Malley said before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. “It’s not right, and it is not just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protection than the children of other couples in our state.”

The committee is expected to vote on the legislation next week, said Chairman Brian E. Frosh, Montgomery Democrat.

Committee members passed last year’s gay-marriage bill by a 7-4 vote and are expected to vote along similar lines this year, sending the legislation to the Senate floor. The bill passed the full Senate in the 2011 General Assembly session but failed in the House when many members objected over their religious beliefs or those of their constituents.

The governor was joined by several elected officials who also testified in favor of gay marriage, including openly gay Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr., Montgomery Democrat; Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a Democrat; and Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, Howard Republican and the state’s only GOP legislator to openly support gay marriage.

Mr. Kittleman, whose father — former GOP state Sen. Robert H. Kittleman — was active in the 1960s civil rights movement, said gay-marriage supporters are leading a similar fight now and that opponents should put gay rights ahead of any fear of negative ramifications.

“You don’t take away someone’s civil rights because of something that might happen,” he said. “You can deal with the mights later on, but make sure we get the civil rights done now.”

Much of the opposition came from members of the religious community, who testified that legalizing gay marriage would violate religious laws and undermine traditional marriage by irrevocably changing a code that has stood throughout the country’s history.

Some argued that gay marriage could open the door for polygamous or incestuous unions and that its supporters eventually will look to roll back religious protections and teach about homosexuality in schools.

The Rev. Bob Borger of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Annapolis said the governor’s bill might protect his church but would force many of its parishioners to “violate their religious convictions as individuals or as businesses.”

While religious groups would have the right to withhold services from gay couples, non-religion-affiliated groups and businesses such as wedding photographers and secular adoption agencies would have to provide services under existing anti-discrimination laws.

Mr. Borger said opponents will not back down, evoking comments last week by Maryland first lady Catherine “Katie” Curran O’Malley, who called some opponents of gay marriage “cowards.”

“Those with sincere religious convictions are being encouraged to give up their beliefs,” Mr. Borger said. “A coward runs from a fight … this is a fight we will not run from.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/31/omalley-makes-his-case-for-gay-unions/

Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2012 4:00 am | Updated: 12:51 am, Sun Jan 29, 2012.

By Christian Alexandersen Times Staff Writer

A longstanding grudge between Carroll County legislators in the Maryland General Assembly has resulted in two separate delegations, one representing Carroll’s interests in the House of Delegates and one in the Senate.

The tension between the delegations stem from years of stalled legislation, each blaming the other side for why local bills were not passed. Past issues are being brought to the present thanks to each of the delegation’s chairpersons — Sen. Joseph Getty, R-District 5, and Del. Susan Krebs, R-District 9B.

The most recent flare up between Carroll’s two delegations occurred recently when the House delegation decided to vote on which local legislation it would submit for passage earlier this month. Despite being two separate delegations, Getty said he expected both delegations to vote together. Carroll’s senators were not even made aware that a vote was being taken. The senators wanted the common courtesy to be invited to vote with the House, Getty said.

The House delegation didn’t know that the Carroll senators had split until three months after the decision to do so in 2011, Krebs said. Carroll’s House delegation voted without the Senate, Krebs said, because they are now separate. Krebs said she expected the Senate delegation to vote later. The Senate delegation scheduled a public hearing on local legislation for Feb. 3.

The recent tiff between the delegations shows a small portion of the problem that has developed over the years. According to both delegation chairpersons, the communication issues between them revolves around Sen. Larry Haines, who represented District 5 as a Republican for 20 years and also served as the joint delegation’s chairman.

Getty won his seat after Haines retired in 2010. Carroll’s senators decided in January 2011 to separate from the joint delegation and form a separate delegation in the Senate. Getty was chosen as the chairman of the new delegation.

The reason for the split had to do with Krebs, he said.

“Toward the end of the last term there were a lot of things where there were disagreements between Susan Krebs and the senators,” Getty said. “She just seemed to blame everything on the Senate [and] go around behind the scenes and try and undermine things.

“It seems like something I inherited,” Getty said.

The problems between the two delegations has to do with how the joint delegation and local legislation was handled in the past, Krebs said. An example of this is how the delegation voted in favor of passing a legislation during the 2010 legislative session that would have allowed Carroll nonprofits to have gaming nights to raise money, Krebs said. Though the legislation passed the full House of Delegates, Krebs said it was stalled in the Senate due to opposition from Haines.

“Unfortunately in the past, our chairman, Senator Haines, didn’t always honor the vote of the [delegation],” Krebs said.

The legislative process to get local legislation passed is now different due to the delegation split, Krebs said. The general assembly defers to county delegations’ decisions for local bills, including bond, liquor and commissioner bills. After the joint delegation voted in favor of a piece of legislation, Krebs said it would have to send a letter to a jurisdiction committee saying that the delegation supports the bill.

Now, every piece of Carroll-related legislation must receive a majority vote in each of the delegations — two in the Senate and three in the House — in order to get introduced. If the legislation receives a majority vote in each of the delegations, a bill will be introduced in both the House and the Senate.

While the full vote of the delegation is supposed to be enough support to get a local bill passed by both legislative houses, Krebs said bills can get hung up if a delegation member doesn’t favor it.

Most county delegations have one for the House and another for the Senate, said Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-District 9. Under the old way of doing things, senators and delegates would have to show their support for local bills in each of their houses even if they didn’t support it. That resulted in bills getting stalled in one of the houses.

Instead of bills getting stalled during the session, each delegation will have the chance to vote against them and keep them from getting introduced, Kittleman said.

“It makes much more sense to get the delegates on record, get the senators on record from the very beginning and then you’ll know if it’s going to have the support of each of the two bodies instead of having to combine,” Kittleman said. “That’s the way, I think, that it naturally should work.”

Reach staff writer Christian Alexandersen at 410-857-7873 or christian.alexandersen@carrollcountytimes.com.

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/carroll-delegations-in-general-assembly-point-fingers-over-split/article_a56cabef-26d8-5d0c-8b01-4f8f4d56a598.html?mode=story

Priorities include promoting social studies education, protecting family farms

by Sarah Breitenbach, Staff Writer, Gazette.Net, posted on Friday, January 27, 2012

ANNAPOLIS — Republican and Democratic senators gathered Thursday morning to prove that they can at least agree on some things.

Members of both parties told reporters that they would back bills to reinforce social studies education, exempt family farms from state estate taxes, protect children from identity theft, create an income tax credit for workers unable to afford the cost of obtaining a security clearance and extend the availability of a scholarship for veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

While none of the measures announced at the first-time event are particularly controversial, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. said lawmakers wanted to show that they could accomplish common goals.

The House of Delegates does not have a similar event planned, but several delegates have agreed to sponsor the bills addressed by the senators, said Alexandra Hughes, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Dist. 30) of Annapolis.

“We’re coming together as best we can,” Miller (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach said. “We’re not going to be able to agree on everything, but things we can agree upon, we’re going to bring forward and pass and hope to solve some of our problems in our state, especially in terms of creating jobs, providing education and balancing the budget.”

The event probably doesn’t mean much politically, said Donald F.Norris, chairman of the Department of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and director for the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research.

“Maybe they, on the face of it, just want to look good,” Norris said. “The reality is on all substantive issues, the parties are miles apart.”

Lawmakers from both parties spoke about the need to focus education curriculum on social studies and civics.

Motivated by the elimination of a standardized high school government test by the state Department of Education last year, the legislation would require public school systems be held accountable for educating students in social studies, lawmakers said.

Miller acknowledged that returning the test, which was a graduation requirement, to classrooms was unlikely, but the bill would require some kind of assessment at the elementary, middle and high school levels.

“(The bill) encourages folks to know about their government, and as much as I think it’s important for science and language and reading and math, if you don’t understand how your government works, if you don’t understand the rights that you have as citizens, it’s really hard to have a free republic,” said Sen. Allan H. Kittleman (R-Dist. 9) of West Friendship.

Senators and potential congressional rivals Robert J. Garagiola (D-Dist. 15) of Germantown and David R. Brinkley (R-Dist. 4) of New Market both spoke to reporters about eliminating estate taxes for people who inherit family farms.

They said their districts struggle with the issue because for many landowners, selling land to developers is more cost effective than paying estate taxes to keep farming.

The legislation, which was sponsored by Sen. Ronald N. Young (D-Dist. 3) of Frederick and Del. Kathryn L. Afzali (R-Dist. 4A) of Middletown last year before being shelved in the committee process, would eliminate taxes on family farms that are inherited and worth less than $5 million, as long as descendants agreed to maintain the land for agricultural use.

Taxes on properties worth more will be reduced from 16 percent to 5 percent, lawmakers said.

Afzali already has introduced a version of the bill in the House of Delegates, and Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) planned to include a similar bill as part of his legislative package.

“The best farm preservation program we can have is anything that enables the farm to be profitable,” Brinkley said. “Some of the returns are risky at best and sometimes then even marginal, but it’s a lifestyle choice and anything we can do to enable the orderly transition of the family farm to later generations is going to improve farming.”

Lawmakers also are planning to pass a bill that would allow parents to create a credit report for their child to prevent the opening of fraudulent accounts with the child’s information and to safeguard against the theft of a minor’s identity or Social Security number.

Del. Craig J. Zucker (D-Dist. 14) of Brookeville, who spoke on behalf of 30 House colleagues who have co-sponsored the bill, said 140,000 children become victims of identity theft annually.

“This is an opportunity for us to let our children in the state of Maryland start with a clean slate to ensure they have every shot of being successful,” Zucker said.

Two other pieces of legislation discussed Thursday would create an income tax credit worth up to $3,000 to offset the cost of security clearances for people who are qualified for work with federal contractors and extend a scholarship program for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families, which was scheduled to expire in June.

sbreitenbach@gazette.net

http://www.gazette.net/article/20120127/NEWS/701279596/1124/senators-come-together-around-handful-of-bipartisan-bills&template=gazette

Ulman continues to build war chest for next move

By Yvonne Wenger, The Baltimore Sun

11:28 a.m. EST, January 20, 2012

The race to become Howard County‘s next executive is shaping up, with potential candidates stashing money in the bank for the chance to replace term-limited Ken Ulman, who is considering a run for higher office.

Campaign finance reports, released this week, show potential contenders gearing up ahead of the 2014 election, including Del. Guy Guzzone and Howard County Councilwoman Courtney Watson, who are Democrats, and Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman.

Guzzone said he banked roughly $92,000 in 2011 and has a balance of about $192,000.

Watson, of Ellicott City, raised the most of the possible county executive candidates in the past 12 months, with $165,700. She has $171,700 on hand.

Kittleman raised nearly $79,000 and has about $62,800 in cash.

Donald F. Norris, a Howard County resident and chairman of the department of public policy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said the size of a contender’s bank account is not necessarily an indication of his or her electability.

But the campaign season will be in full swing in two years, Norris said, and viable candidates should begin fundraising soon.

The three potential candidates for executive, as well as Ulman, said they are focused on their current jobs and have made no decisions about their next political move.

Ulman is among a handful of Democrats considering a campaign to replace Gov. Martin O’Malley, who cannot run again because of term limits. Ulman raised more than $1 million in the past year and has $1.3 million in his treasury.

Nearly 40 percent of his cash was raised in Howard County, Ulman said. Overall, 38 percent came from businesses and 57 percent from individuals, he said. Nearly 5 percent came donations from political action committees.

Ulman said many of his supporters want him to spread the successes in Howard County, such as the state’s lowest unemployment rate, safe communities and strong schools, to the region and state.

The county’s leaders have made strategic decisions about land development, invested in public schools and created vibrant libraries and parks, he said. That translates into well-educated residents who have good jobs, Ulman said.

“That doesn’t happen by accident,” he said.

Watson said a run for executive is still just a consideration. Still, she said, her current fundraising record is consistent with her political start as a grass-roots activist: 73 percent of her contributions were for $250 or less.

During the next three years and beyond, Watson said, her goal will be to make Howard a friendly place to do business and a place where residents can count on strong schools and reliable roads.

“We’re talking about not next year, but the next 20 years,” she said.

Guzzone, chairman of the Howard County delegation to the General Assembly, said he has a long history of working on behalf of county residents. He doesn’t expect to decide for at least a year whether to run for county executive. His report was not immediately available on the state campaign finance website; he provided his totals in an interview.

He said he stands on his record in the county, where, he said, the quality of life is second to none.

“I have been directly involved in helping to create an atmosphere in Howard County for well over a decade, several decades,” he said.

Kittleman said he hasn’t decided whether he will seek re-election to the state Senate, retire after nearly a quarter-century in public service or run for county executive. The new map for his district, part of the state’s once-a-decade legislative redistricting process, could give Kittleman a harder road toward re-election.

He has less than half of what his potential Democratic rivals for county executive have in the bank, but Kittleman also noted that as state legislators, he and Guzzone are barred from raising campaign cash during the 90 days the General Assembly is in session.

Kittleman said Howard benefits when its political leaders have diverse philosophical viewpoints.

“My vision is for Howard County to be an innovative place,” he said. “I think we could be more business-friendly and have more economic freedom.”

ywenger@baltsun.com

twitter.com/yvonnewenger

Money in the bank

Potential 2014 contenders for Howard County executive reveal their finances in annual campaign disclosure reports.

Here’s a look at their cash in the bank:

•Del. Guy Guzzone: $192,000

•Howard County Councilwoman Courtney Watson: $171,700

•Sen. Allan Kittleman: $62,800

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/bs-ho-campaign-finance-20120120,0,6950334,full.story

State senator wants ‘people who are a little more apolitical’

By Jon Meoli, jmeoli@tribune.com, The Baltimore Sun

January 19, 2012 | 6:37 p.m.

State Sen. Jim Brochin introduced legislation in Annapolis on Thursday that he says would reform Maryland’s legislative and Congressional redistricting processes by making them less partisan and more objective.

“Politicians shouldn’t be making legislative redistricting maps,” said Brochin, a Democrat from Towson who represents the 42nd District. “They just shouldn’t.”

Brochin said the state’s redistricting process, conducted every 10 years to reflect changes in the U.S. Census, has, “become such a grotesquely partisan exercise that it just would make more sense if people who make maps for a living, and people who are a little more apolitical, did this.”

Senate Bill 160, one of three bills in the package introduced Jan. 19, calls for creation of a new eight-member redistricting commission, which would be directed by the executive director of the non-partisan Department of Legislative Services.

Four of the appointees would come from the governor, while the Senate president and speaker of the House of Delegates would each appoint two. Brochin said he’s planning an amendment that would provide for minority party representation.

“It has different appointees from each branch of government, ideally,” Brochin said. “Maybe you get a little more diversity.”

The committee under Brochin’s proposal would vary from the current redistricting process, for which a five-member commission was appointed by the governor to make recommendations for his redistricting plan.

Brochin’s second bill — Senate Bill 161 — deals with the criteria that can be used for drawing new district lines.

It would prohibit districts being “drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress … or for the purpose of augmenting or diluting the voting strength of a language or racial minority group,” according to the bill’s text.

Brochin said the bill stipulates that an elected official’s address, party demographic data, and previous election results cannot be used to draw district lines.

In the current redistricting process, the map proposed by Gov. Martin O’Malleywould change the 42nd District — where Brochin currently serves — from one that consists mainly of Towson to one that stretches up to the Pennsylvania border and includes northern Baltimore County, which is heavily Republican.

Additionally, the new map also puts four sitting Republican delegates — Susan Aumann and Bill Frank of District 42, Wade Kach of District 5B and Joe Boteler of District 8 — into a northern sub-district, District 42B, where they will have to run against one another for two seats if they chose to run in 2014.

Brochin said that part of his goal in the legislation would be to curb some of the types of moves seen in this year’s process.

“There are things in place in this law that make the process much different,” he said.

Among other provisions are stipulations that a person may not be appointed to the commission if they hold an elected or appointed office in the executive or legislative branch, or if they hold a political party office; and a provision that public meetings on the maps would have to be publicized seven to 10 days before the hearing date.

In December 2011, the Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Committee submitted its recommended legislative redistricting map on Dec. 16, and the public hearing was held Dec. 22 in Annapolis.

A third bill — Senate Bill 162 — would provide similar provisions for Congressional redistricting, which Brochin described as being “worse than the legislative one.”

“Tell me what western Maryland has in common with Montgomery County?” Brochin said, specifically in reference to the proposal for the 6th Congressional District, which would stretch from Montgomery County to Garrett County. “It takes away from the representation of western Maryland.”

All three of Brochin’s bills are being co-sponsored by 37th District Republican Richard Colburn, who represents Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot counties, and Allan Kittleman, a Republican from the 9th District in Howard and Carroll counties. Democrat Jamie Raskin of the 20th District, Montgomery County, is co-sponsoring SB 160, which deals primarily with the commission.

Brochin introduced the same package in 2006, but said he couldn’t even get it to a vote. This time around, he’s hopeful that it will gain more support.

“If you want to put this in a nutshell, we have a system right now where politicians are choosing their voters,” Brochin said. “We need a system where voters are choosing their politicians.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/baltimorecounty/news/ph-tt-redistrict-bill-0125-20120119,0,890840.story