Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The law goes to the governor for signature and a likely referendum challenge.

The Maryland State Senate passed same-sex marriage by a 25-22 vote Thursday night.

The passage of the bill comes less than a week after the House of Delegates passed the identical bill.

The bill now goes to Gov. Martin O'Malley for his signature.

The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2013 is expected to face a referendum challenge and could end up on the November ballot along with the bill that grants in-state tuition rates to some children of illegal immigrants.


How they Voted—Anne Arundel County:

James Rosapepe, D, 21 Yes
John Astle, D, 30 No
Bryan Simonaire, R, 31 No
James DeGrange, D, 32 No
Edward Reilly, R, 33 No

How they Voted—Prince George's County:

James Rosapepe, D, 21 yes
Paul Pinsky, D, 22 Yes
Douglas Peters, D, 23 No
Joanne Benson, D, 24 no
Ulysses Currie, D, 25 no
C. Anthony Muse, D, 26 no 
Thomas V. Mike Miller, D, 27 No
Victor Ramirez, D, 47 Yes

Glenn March 09, 2012 at 04:53 PM
Barry, you are a real trooper trying to find a way to get them to see your point. It is hopeless. However, I will add that the gays in England have been protesting to force churches to marry them, and the government momentarily caved. Guess what the churches did. They refused to conduct ANY marriages! The govt. has since backed off. Enjoy this old song, which may not be an issue going forward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1F5BLLFAeM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1F5BLLFAeM
DioDingo March 09, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Barry, I don't think David was saying you can't marry multiple people. He was saying this bill has nothing to do with it. If we all agree that people can marry whom ever they want then its not a bit deal. Marriage is a religious thing and should be full removed from the public sector. My marriage to my wife should be converted to a Civil Union. An agreement between two people in the eyes of the law that allows us to share all things.
Jennell Connelly March 09, 2012 at 06:23 PM
Okay Barry, you are still insisting on polygamy so how about you lay out exactly how this would work? Homosexual couples have done that, they simply want their same sex partner to be legally treated no different that any opposite sex spouse. Clearly what you are requesting is more difficult, so give us the details. Would you and your spouse have to agree prior to marriage that you could each marry someone else later? Would your spouse have any say on that later marriage? Would you have a special "polygamist" marriage or would your spouse still be able to seek divorce for adultery? Would sleeping with your other spouses constitute adultery as it is sexual activity outside the marriage that you two share? Or would all of you have to enter into the marriage at the same time agreeing to all allow everyone to sleep with each other? Would your spouses have any claims on the property earned by your other spouse? What would happen to their relationship if you passed, would they remain in a married state? Would there be any limit to the number of people you could marry? Would your insurance plan be forced to cover everyone under one family plan. Would you all be filing a joint tax return, and if so, if one person commits income tax fraud, could you all be locked up? Who would have the right to make end of life decisions? Would it be up to a vote? What about a tie? And finally do you really not see any differences between polygamy and same sex marriage?
Barry March 09, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Jennell - I'm glad you asked. Currently, when you marry you sign a "contract" the same as any other business contract. We would treat polygamy the same as any other business partnership. If you have already entered into a 2 person partnership, both parties would have to agree to allow a third into the partnership. Anytime you have a business partnership you can spell out the arrangements for how assets will be distributed whenever one partner decides to quit. "Would sleeping with your other spouses constitute adultery" No "What would happen to their relationship if you passed" Same as any other partnership agreement "Would there be any limit to the number of people you could marry?" No "Would your insurance plan be forced to cover everyone under one family plan" Yes "Would you all be filing a joint tax return" Yes "If one person commits tax fraud could you all be locked up" Yes - the same law as it applies to married couples "Who would have the right to make end of the life decisions" Spelled out in the partnership agreement "Do you really not see any differences between polygamy and same sex marriage" No Why would it bother you if I had 3 wives? Seems like you are trying to force your morals and your idea of what marriage should be on everyone else.
Barry March 09, 2012 at 07:13 PM
Couldn't agree more. I think you get it - except for the part where an agreement can only be between 2 people and not 3 or 4.
DioDingo March 09, 2012 at 07:28 PM
Sure, I made a comment much farther up the thread agreeing the need for multiple folks if prices continue to rise and salaries stay the same. Why couldn't me and 3 others put all our eggs into a basket for an equal share of the gain or loss. Not as a S-corp or anything but as a "family", let consenting adults consent.
Barry March 09, 2012 at 07:32 PM
Spot on. Can't for the life of me understand why people don't get it!
Glenn March 09, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Hey, why is the argument revolving only around straight people and polygamy? What if four men wanted to marry?
Jennell Connelly March 09, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Barry, I don't really have a problem if all the parties agree with the exception of the legal issues that I think it would bring up. My point is that writing the laws allowing polygamy is not as simple as changing "between and man and a woman" to between two people. There are numerous laws written retaining to rights in a marriage and those would all need to be evaluated with their ability to continue functioning when more then two people were allowed in a union unless it simply followed rules agreed upon in the agreement. The law would still need to specify how these relationships would function in areas that aren't spelled out in the agreement. People tend not contemplate every issue ahead of time. I am assuming if it isn't spelled out it isn't allowed? But what would happen to those in a two person marriage? Would they still get the benefits of marriage without having written agreements specifying their rights? Or would they now have to have a lawyer to write their legal commitments to each other? And would this end up making marriage something that only those with means could afford? If polygamy becomes legal however, I offer to marry anyone who needs insurance coverage providing they will sign a partnership agreement that specifies that our "marriage" is limited to insurance. I mean after all, I already pay for a family plan I might as well get my moneys worth.
My Name March 09, 2012 at 09:41 PM
i just don't understand why pot is illegal...... What, someone had to go there!!!!!! This hole post went crazy when MATT started to drink his beer and post his thoughts! If you don't like gay marriage don't have gay babies!
Matt March 10, 2012 at 12:06 AM
More of our future. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, will provide “hormone therapy” to illegal aliens it has detained who say they are transgender, according to the agency’s operations manual for its detention facilities. The 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards says that all illegal alien detainees shall be screened by a specially trained detention officer within 12 hours of their arrival at the detention facility. The operations manual specifically states that the “screening shall … inquire into a transgender detainee’s gender self-identification and history of transition-related care, when a detainee self-identifies as transgender.”
David March 10, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Boy, you know so much about that subject that you must be having some hormone therapy yourself.
David March 10, 2012 at 12:37 AM
I think you mean the 2 cases in which some churches sent people pretending to be gay to protest at the churches very same churches that sent them.
David March 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM
Barry, if you want polygamy so bad, go petition the legislature for it. Go make your arguments & defend them. Go open a polygamy blog elsewhere & take your comments there. But don't pretend to saddle it upon gay marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Barry March 10, 2012 at 03:15 AM
I would let adults decide for themselves if they want to get married.
Barry March 10, 2012 at 03:16 AM
More personal attacks David? How mature.
Barry March 10, 2012 at 03:17 AM
David, I hate to call you a bad name, but seriously dude. Gay marriage and polygamy are all the same. We are on the same team. By you saying "I gots mine so I dont care about your cause" only makes me want to disagree with you. You still have never answered why you disagree with polygamy - you are only concerned with yourself and your own causes. If everyone was like you gay marriage would never be passed until the majority was gay.
David March 10, 2012 at 03:54 AM
You know how to read? The definitions are not the same. Look it up in a dictionary.
Matt March 11, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Hey My Name I don't drink beer without a social event, which is not this blog. I don't have gay babies as there is no such thing, babies develop and mimic their environmental surroundings. There is nothing in our DNA stating a gay gene. Some children find it hard to develop the skills needed to be successful with the opposite sex and find themselves looking for another opportunity for social comforts and sexual satisfaction. Its funny how in prison the same sex persons engage in homosexual activities only due to environment limitations, I don't think all people in prisons are born gay and end up there together.
Barry March 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM
I'm going to try to take David's advice and advocate for that I want instead of what is fair. I say DON'T pass the bill allowing gay marriages until it is equal for all. That is my new platform. Why should gays be allowed to marry yet still discriminate against polygamist. It would be like passing civil rights legislation but only applying it to some minorities while still keeping others out of it. In this instance, David would be the black guy saying that this legislation is 100% fair cause he is covered - but Hector who is spanish would not want it passed because his group was excluded from the leglislation.
David March 11, 2012 at 05:10 PM
You are just obstinate in not wanting to understand. Race has no bearing on this law. No church is forced to marry gay couples. Only those churches that want to, justices of the peace & clerks of court will. If a gay couple somewhere getting married somehow "magically" weakens Barry's marriage it must be because he's no good at it.
Barry March 12, 2012 at 01:08 AM
And if you discriminate against polygimist then you are hyprocritical. I've asked you at least a half dozen times, but you have never answered why you are against polygamy. You just think its either gay marriage or polygamy and you have to choose one. I feel sorry for you - and how you think - and how you raise your kids.
DioDingo March 12, 2012 at 01:09 PM
Why not an incremental approach? First we let gays marry, then we take marriage out of the laws and make them all civil unions, then whomever can consent can form a union with whomever. Sure you would have communes of 30 people together sharing whatever they have. The majority however would be a man and a women. You may end up with a lot of Man/Woman/single Widow or Widower. Would that be wrong to allow adults to care for older people like they were family? We seem hung up on the trees for the forest in this case.
David March 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Np incremental approach needed. Should blacks have waited for an incremental approach to their civil rights? No, & neither should gay couples. The fact that opponents of gay marriage cannot point to a single harm this law would cause is proof they only oppose it based upon religious or emotional bias. Marriage laws are fine as they are. Just need to allow gay couples to marry. No other change necessary.
Barry March 13, 2012 at 12:02 AM
The fact that opponents of polygamous marriage cannot point to a single harm this law would cause is proof they only oppose it based upon religious or emotional bias. Marriage laws are fine as they are. Just need to allow plural couples to marry. No other change necessary.
Jessica D March 13, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Barry - Here are several cogent arguments. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/dont_do_unto_others.html http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/distinguishing-gay-marriage-and.html http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf You can find many others. I personally find the economic argument to be most compelling.
Glenn March 13, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Perhaps many gay males don't support polygamy because they already have open relationships even when "married": http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after
DioDingo March 13, 2012 at 12:42 PM
People don't like change the incremental approach was to allow people to get used to the change. I think there would be a number of people who would argue about all civil rights going slow. It is all just what have in their hearts and heads about changing some religious/social norms. I think a lot of folks forget they live in a pluralistic country and everyone thinks different then everyone else. Even same or similar religions feel different about the same ideas. Their was a person quoted on NPR this morning talking about how we needed to get God back into the government. That we would be better as a country if we all prayed more to the Christian god.
David March 15, 2012 at 01:36 AM
The USA is one of the most religious countries. Religious influence has been steadily growing since the late 1970's. Some may even see a correlation between the growth of religious fervor & the growth of socio-ecomonic woes. The country definitely seemed much stronger & better when the pledge of allegiance didn't include God, and when coins just promoted "Liberty" instead of under God. Regardless, that is not what is at issue here. At issue is wether civil rights can be witheld from citizens because of rel;igious discrimination. A simple reading of the Constitution & even of the Declaration of Independence says no, because rights are inalienable. So just because someone might feel "uncomfortable" or have his faith or religion disagree, rights are rights & cannot be taken from people. The same happened when blacks were finally awarded their full citizenship rights. Deeply religious people were "uncomfortable" with it & it was against lots of faith & religious convictions, but right are rights & cannot be taken away.
David March 15, 2012 at 01:50 AM
Didn't Newt Gingrich himself have a scandal a few months ago because he had wanted an open marriage with wife # 2? Onetime presidential candidate John Edwards had a similar incident. Or so many infamous politicians & religious figures that throughout the years get caught with their pants down? So, were their marriages invalidated by their nefarious, perfidious 2-timings? No, & neither have the marriages of millions of heterosexual adulterers throughout the centuries. So unless you are willing to make adultery a prosecutable crime for heterosexuals, with lots of convictions, harsh penalties & reduce heterosexual adultery to practically 0%, you have no argument against gay marriage. As for myself, no open relationships here.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something