Gay Marriage Ban Fails in Md.
GOP Sponsor Vows to Revive Measure With Parliamentary Ploys

By Matthew Mosk and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 3, 2006

A measure that would have put a same-sex marriage ban on the November ballot died yesterday in a hail of parliamentary maneuvers as tempers flared in the Maryland House of Delegates over an issue that carried implications both deeply personal and broadly political.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) abruptly halted the morning floor session after learning that Republicans had gathered enough signatures to petition the measure to the floor for a debate.

Later, Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee voted 11 to 10 to attach an amendment to the bill that one delegate said turned it into "scrambled eggs." The committee then voted unanimously to kill the entire proposal.

In most cases, the death of a bill in legislative committee spells an end to the debate on the matter, at least for the year. But in a day of unusually coarse partisanship, the bill's backers vowed to continue fighting.

"I always have another trick up my sleeve," said Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel), who drafted the proposal to codify in the state constitution that marriage can only involve one man and one woman.

Dwyer and other backers said the matter gained fresh urgency two weeks ago when a Baltimore Circuit Court judge ruled the state's 33-year-old same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The judge stayed her order, pending appeals.

Much of yesterday's maneuvering centered on shielding moderate Democrats from having to post a clear vote on the constitutional ban -- an idea that plays well in their districts but could hurt the party in this fall's pivotal elections, when both the governor's office and a U.S. Senate seat are in play.

House Democratic leaders were so concerned about possible political fallout that they refused to allow an anonymous spectator in the committee room to videotape the proceedings, a move Republicans said was meant to prevent the vote from being spun into a campaign commercial. The chief security officer for the House said it was long-standing policy.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has issued a series of statements on the issue, though not until yesterday did he clearly voice support for the constitutional amendment. "I firmly believe the people should vote on this issue," he said.

Last month, the Virginia General Assembly placed a similar amendment on its November ballot.

The most pivotal vote of the day came on a proposal from Del. Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery), who offered an amendment introducing a seemingly contradictory concept. Under her language, the bill continued to outlaw same-sex marriage, but it also recognized civil unions, prescribing to same-sex partners all the rights and benefits afforded to married couples.

Dumais said she saw no conflict in putting the two concepts into a single constitutional amendment.

Republicans recoiled at the prospect. Del. Susan K. McComas (Harford) said that if she were "a cynical person, I would say this is a poison pill to kill the whole bill."

"Let's be honest," she added. The purpose of the Dumais amendment "is to confuse the members and come out with a bill that looks like scrambled eggs."

When it came time for the roll call vote on the civil unions amendment, several Republicans replied, "Adamantly opposed!" or "Absolutely no." Three Democrats broke ranks to side with GOP lawmakers.

After the vote, five of the Republicans on the committee asked to have their names removed as sponsors. When they left the committee room, the Republicans gathered in the gleaming hallways of the House's still-unfinished office building to excoriate Democratic leaders. That led to a rare public shouting match.

"What just happened in the House Judiciary Committee was a travesty," said Del. Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington).

Del. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County) made no apologies for the procedural moves the Democrats employed. He said that Tuesday's hearing on the bill was an outpouring of homophobia and that the "disgusting comments" represented "the lowest moment of my eight years here."

"Just because Delegate Dwyer has made it his cause celebre to bash gays doesn't mean we don't have a process down here," Zirkin said later.

Earlier in the day, Busch thwarted an effort by GOP lawmakers to circumvent the committee and bring the constitutional amendment directly to the House floor. Under House rules, members can employ a rarely used procedure to petition the bill out of committee, but it takes 47 votes. With only 43 House Republicans, the bill's backers went in search of Democrats and found four: Theodore J. Sophocleus and Joan Cadden, both of Anne Arundel, Rosetta C. Parker (Prince George's) and Kevin Kelly (Allegany).

Republican whip Anthony J. O'Donnell (Calvert) had the petition in hand when the House convened shortly after 10 a.m. But just after the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance -- and before O'Donnell had a chance to deliver the document -- Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery) moved to recess the session, the speaker banged his gavel and the moment had passed.

"They stuffed us!" O'Donnell gasped as the speaker walked off the floor.

Democrats defended the countermeasure, saying it was Republicans who were attempting to bypass a process that has been in use in Annapolis for 300 years.

Republicans said they will probably try another unusual procedural move to revive the measure on the House floor. But, McComas said, "we just don't have the numbers." Typically, the Senate will not take up a bill that has been defeated in the House.

The lengths that Democratic leaders have gone to prevent a vote on the measure speaks to the history of same-sex marriage proposals in other states, where some evidence suggests that such ballot initiatives have driven up Republican turnout on Election Day.

If lawmakers do not pass the constitutional amendment, there is no way for citizens to put such a measure on the ballot.

Ehrlich said yesterday that "there's no doubt in my mind that this will be an issue in the 2006 races," though his position has been evolving since the Baltimore court ruled. First, he supported letting the court process take its course but said he strongly backed "traditional marriage." He said he would ask his chief counsel to help him map out a strategy.

On Jan. 26, his State of the State address made no mention of the issue. Then, late Monday, he issued a statement urging the legislature to let the matter be debated on the floors of both chambers. Yesterday, he went a step further, saying he backed a public vote. "The people of Maryland should decide," he said.

Staff writer John Wagner contributed to this report.