P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4/AR2008020402911.html?nav=rss_nation/special
Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Advocates for same-sex marriage plan to introduce legislation in the
Maryland General Assembly today that would abolish civil marriage ceremonies
now confined to heterosexual unions in the state and replace them with
domestic partnerships for all couples.
The bills represent an unusual new tactic in the effort to push legal rights
for gay couples through the House and Senate during the legislature's 90-day
session. Sponsors of the measure say they are attempting to address head-on
the concerns of lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
Under their proposal, all couples -- straight or gay -- would be on equal
footing with secular unions. Religious marriage in churches, synagogues and
mosques would be unaffected, as would existing civil marriages.
The word "marriage" would be replaced with "valid domestic partnership" in
the state's family law code.
"If people want to maintain a religious test for marriage, let's turn it
into a religious institution," said Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), the
bill's Senate sponsor.
Some Republican leaders scoffed yesterday at the bill's strategy.
"What they're talking about is an even more radical departure from
traditional marriage than even advocates for gay marriage are talking
about," said Del. Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington), the minority whip.
"They're creating a situation for one special interest group that basically
diminishes the value of marriage for everyone else."
Shank and other opponents say that same-sex unions defy religious
convictions that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Fifty lawmakers have signed onto another bill that would grant full marriage
rights to same-sex couples, an effort by advocates to win in the legislature
what they lost in Maryland's highest court last fall when it upheld the
state's 34-year ban on same-sex marriage. The Court of Appeals in effect
threw the issue back to the General Assembly.
Raskin is a lead sponsor of that bill as well. "If those of us who are
straight can experience the sense of indignity gay citizens experience every
day, just for a moment, then this bill will serve its purpose," he said.
Advocates and lawmakers acknowledge that full marriage rights are not
expected to be approved this year. Chances for passage are good in the House
but not in the more conservative Senate, where it would be hard to overcome
a filibuster by opponents. Conservative Republicans are attempting for a
third year to write the ban into the state constitution, an unlikely
prospect but a reflection of many lawmakers' uneasiness with same-sex
unions.
So lawmakers came up with another option that is designed as an eventual
compromise on civil unions. Civil unions, which are legal in six states,
give couples a broad range of legal rights, but fewer than marriage
provides.
The issue faces its stiffest opposition in the Senate's Judicial Proceedings
Committee, where social conservatives from both parties dominate on some
issues. Chairman Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who supports full marriage
rights for same-sex couples, said the panel would be more receptive to a
civil unions bill.
"We're heartened that there are so many proposals out there that seek to
remedy the problems that go along with marriage inequality," said Dan
Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, the state's leading gay
rights group.
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he supports civil unions.
Del. Todd L. Schuler (D-Baltimore County), the new bill's House sponsor,
said the idea of making marriage a religious rather than civil institution
came out of a series of conversations with opponents of same-sex marriage.
"We thought there was some common ground -- that marriage should be strictly
for churches but that rights and benefits have to be administered equally,"
he said.
Schuler acknowledged that he's not sure the bill "is what opponents had in
mind." He said he was swayed by a dissenting opinion by one of the judges in
last year's 4 to 3 Court of Appeals decision, who suggested as one
legislative option that the state get out of the marriage business
altogether.
Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Advocates for same-sex marriage plan to introduce legislation in the
Maryland General Assembly today that would abolish civil marriage ceremonies
now confined to heterosexual unions in the state and replace them with
domestic partnerships for all couples.
The bills represent an unusual new tactic in the effort to push legal rights
for gay couples through the House and Senate during the legislature's 90-day
session. Sponsors of the measure say they are attempting to address head-on
the concerns of lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
Under their proposal, all couples -- straight or gay -- would be on equal
footing with secular unions. Religious marriage in churches, synagogues and
mosques would be unaffected, as would existing civil marriages.
The word "marriage" would be replaced with "valid domestic partnership" in
the state's family law code.
"If people want to maintain a religious test for marriage, let's turn it
into a religious institution," said Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), the
bill's Senate sponsor.
Some Republican leaders scoffed yesterday at the bill's strategy.
"What they're talking about is an even more radical departure from
traditional marriage than even advocates for gay marriage are talking
about," said Del. Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington), the minority whip.
"They're creating a situation for one special interest group that basically
diminishes the value of marriage for everyone else."
Shank and other opponents say that same-sex unions defy religious
convictions that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Fifty lawmakers have signed onto another bill that would grant full marriage
rights to same-sex couples, an effort by advocates to win in the legislature
what they lost in Maryland's highest court last fall when it upheld the
state's 34-year ban on same-sex marriage. The Court of Appeals in effect
threw the issue back to the General Assembly.
Raskin is a lead sponsor of that bill as well. "If those of us who are
straight can experience the sense of indignity gay citizens experience every
day, just for a moment, then this bill will serve its purpose," he said.
Advocates and lawmakers acknowledge that full marriage rights are not
expected to be approved this year. Chances for passage are good in the House
but not in the more conservative Senate, where it would be hard to overcome
a filibuster by opponents. Conservative Republicans are attempting for a
third year to write the ban into the state constitution, an unlikely
prospect but a reflection of many lawmakers' uneasiness with same-sex
unions.
So lawmakers came up with another option that is designed as an eventual
compromise on civil unions. Civil unions, which are legal in six states,
give couples a broad range of legal rights, but fewer than marriage
provides.
The issue faces its stiffest opposition in the Senate's Judicial Proceedings
Committee, where social conservatives from both parties dominate on some
issues. Chairman Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who supports full marriage
rights for same-sex couples, said the panel would be more receptive to a
civil unions bill.
"We're heartened that there are so many proposals out there that seek to
remedy the problems that go along with marriage inequality," said Dan
Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, the state's leading gay
rights group.
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he supports civil unions.
Del. Todd L. Schuler (D-Baltimore County), the new bill's House sponsor,
said the idea of making marriage a religious rather than civil institution
came out of a series of conversations with opponents of same-sex marriage.
"We thought there was some common ground -- that marriage should be strictly
for churches but that rights and benefits have to be administered equally,"
he said.
Schuler acknowledged that he's not sure the bill "is what opponents had in
mind." He said he was swayed by a dissenting opinion by one of the judges in
last year's 4 to 3 Court of Appeals decision, who suggested as one
legislative option that the state get out of the marriage business
altogether.
