| Page 2 of 2 < |
Gay Marriage Amendment Seen Eroding Current Rights
Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. talks with protesters after testifying before a House committee in Annapolis on his proposal to ban same-sex marriage.
(By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Dwyer began his presentation by attempting to recite the Declaration of Independence, before he was cut short by Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George's). Dwyer said he would resist the call from House leaders to wait for the state's high court to rule.
"What you're asking me to do is put my faith and trust in the Maryland Court of Appeals, and I cannot do that," he said.
Robert P. Duckworth, the Anne Arundel County court clerk who has made his name conducting marriage ceremonies, pounded his fist on the table as he told lawmakers that their failure to respond now would "turn the institution of marriage on its head."
The crowd cheered as he vowed to resist any request by a same-sex couple to marry in his courthouse.
At another point, a delegate asked the executive director of the gay rights group Equality Maryland whether he believed that laws and rights came from God. Dan Furmansky replied, "I believe I am a child of God . . . so the answer to your question is yes."
A smaller group of advocates of same-sex marriage gathered outside with signs of protest. Kate Klos, a clinical social worker, took off work to attend, saying she hopes someday to marry her partner. She wore a rainbow-colored cross, saying it's important to remind people that not everyone who is devout opposes same-sex marriage.
Inside, some religious leaders made the same point, urging lawmakers to distinguish between marriages recognized by the church and the responsibility of the state to provide what Rabbi Sarah Meytin called "full civil equality."
Civil rights was at the core of arguments made by the state's NAACP chapter and the state's AFL-CIO representative.
Elbridge James, the NAACP chief, said his group would view a constitutional ban as a return to the 1860s, the 1870s and the 1920s, "when African Americans lost their rights."
But it was Jamin B. Raskin, an American University law professor, who returned to Simmons's avenue of attack. The bill, Raskin said, "wildly overshoots the mark" by eliminating basic rights available to gays now. He called it the first amendment of its kind since Prohibition specifically aimed at taking away rights, instead of advancing them.
"This bill would turn the Bill of Rights into a bill of wrongs," he said.
The House committee is expected to vote on the proposal as early as this week. If it does not clear the committee, the ban's supporters say, they will deploy a parliamentary maneuver to try to force a vote on the House floor.
Staff writers Ann E. Marimow and Robert Barnes contributed to this report.
