You are a politition, and if it went your way I doubt you would still call for a referendum. What if it does go to referendum and it does not go your way, what will you propose then?

I believe in marriage PERIOD. So just because you don't like what two people do in the bedroom you don't think their union should be reconized as legal? Hhmm good thing you can't see in everyones bedrooms. There would be more straight people than you can imagine that would fall into your not eligible marriage thinking!

The reason governments began issuing marriage licenses was to prevent black men from marrying white women, and laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying does the same thing, discriminates against people and regulates homosexuals to a lesser status. I do not understand why in the 21st century we continue to allow bigots to influence laws that discriminate against anyone. Not to mention that the state or federal government has no constitutional authority to restrict who can get married. If the state is going to regulate marriage than it needs to allow all citizens the same opportunity regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race economic status or for any reason.
Defending marriage is a moot point in a country with a divorce rate over 50%, and I challenge anyone to come with a logical reason that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry, and because "the bible says so" is not a valid reason because no where in the bible does it state that and in this country there is a separation of church and state. If a religious organization does not want to permit same sex marriages than that is their right, however the state of Maryland nor the federal government does not have this right.

Delegate Glass:

Would you put this to a referendum if your side had won? Why is it that the people should get to decide only on legislative issues that your side loses? Given your statement that "[your] plan is to work hard to try to send this to a referendum to be sure this vote goes to the people to decide this very important issue, not the politicians", it is blatant hypocrisy for you to pick and choose which "very important issues" the people get to decide upon.

I voted for you in the last election. Your position on this issue has changed my mind. You are no longer deserving of my support. It is not because I disagree with your position; I respect everyone's right to have a position whether or not I agree with it. You have lost my support because of this whiny, condescending response to your side losing. You should be just as outspoken about getting everything on the ballot as you are for this issue, otherwise you are just another classless political grandstander, and I will not support your re-election efforts. Enjoy what is left of your last term in office.

No "side" lost...we all lost. The state has no busines santioning an unnatural act.

Eric...gloating is unbecoming and that entire tirade won't win hearts and minds...it only serves to alienate your neighbors.

This bill will end state sanctioned discrimination. The united states governments began issuing marriage licenses was to prevent black men from marrying white women, and laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying does the same thing, discriminates against people and regulates homosexuals to a lesser status. I do not understand why in the 21st century we continue to allow bigots to influence laws that discriminate against anyone.
Regardless off your religious beliefs I wish everyone would stop the hated, discrimination and disrespect that is spread because of this issue. It upsets me that people use my religion to justify the bigotry. As a Roman Catholic I have looked past the Bibles alleged demonetization of homosexuality. The hatred and foul words that have been said hurts me deeply, for Christians who are taught to promote compassion and helping their fellow men and women this is a sad state. I do not believe that Jesus would ever turn away someone because of their sexual orientation. And it is because of the hatred some people have towards homosexuals and others that are "different" is the reason that the state now needs to define marriage and protect those that are discriminated upon.
I just hope that we can finally come together and accept each other for what we are.

Peter...you're not being discriminated against. You are free to marry a woman just as anyone else is. This is about changing the legal definition of marriage to include other than current definition allowing for an unnatural act to be included within the definition. I just happen to feel it isn't good for the long term health of a society to erode the strength of marriage by allowing other than what is optimal for children, etc., as being somehow equal. I actually don't care who you sleep with, certainly don't wish you or any other gay person ill; only that your relationships shouldn't be elevated as equal because frankly it's not.

Karl that is discrimination, I should not be told who I can and can not love. I am a straight man but I believe everyone should be equal. What you call an unnatural act I call love, and with so much hate in this world why should we deniey love. That is what marriage is about love between two people. And about society eroding we went down that road a long time ago, in a country with a divorce rate of over 50% your protecting marriage point it void. All children need is love from their parent regardless of gender, there are too many occupancies bad heterosexual parents to blanky claim that just because a child has heterosexual parents will be best for them.
Karl my final point is you are spreading hate, Thomas Jefferson proclaimed all men are created equal and you not the state of Maryland nor the federal government has any right to say other wise

The Bible (or any other religious text or belief) is not a barometer by which the government is allowed to decide legislation.

This legislation has no effect on heterosexuals, married or otherwise, and to even consider that an issue regarding minority rights should be decided by the majority is inviting the opportunity for further discrimination. What if the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's were put to referendum in states like Mississippi, or Louisiana? Would they have been upheld? I know there is a difference between Federal and State law, but the idea is still the same. There is no valid secular argument as to why homosexuals in Maryland should not be able to marry. Period. Abstract arguments about the "sanctity of marriage", or outrageous claims of future acceptance of bestiality and incest are baseless and offensive. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but your life as a heterosexual man or woman will not change because of this legislation.

@Karl: you said "that lifestyle need not be elevated as equal to a married man and woman because it's not." Why not? Explain it. Maybe you have some new revelation that they didn't think of in CA when all those lawyers and Mormons couldn't come up with one reason. Come on, let’s hear why. Just back up what you say please.

Men and women each bring something different and important to a relationship, particularly when there are children involved. I'm no psycologist, but I'm certainy aware of the long understood difference in the way each sex parents and how that helps build a balanced psyche for a child. Men tend to provide a sense of accomplishment and fearlessness, while women temper that with a more thoughtful, caring trait - it's the way nature intended and what's worked since time began. Gays have no such balance.

Do you have any proof to back this up or is this just your opinion? Your statements are based on based on antiquated gender roles and not sex. Gender is a social construct, man and woman Sex is biological male and female. A male and female are required to create a child, but not to raise one.

LoL, Karl.

Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in the Brazilian state of Alagoas, Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Brazil and Mexico.

Most objections to same-sex marriage seem to be rooted in religious faith or prejudice and defy proof or disproof. However, opponents of same-sex marriage do invoke one line of reasoning that can be confirmed or refuted by evidence.

That argument concerns children, and rests on two related contentions: First, unlike heterosexual couples, gay couples generally do not raise children and therefore do not need the benefits of marriage. Second, to the extent that gays do raise children, they do the children harm.

As it happens, the best available evidence shows that both arguments rest on fantasies and false stereotypes.

The proclivity to raise children is neither automatic among mixed-gender couples nor off-limits to same-sex couples. The 2000 U.S. Census showed that in California, half of married couples and one-third of gay couples are raising children. (The latter figure is 28% if limited to one's "own" children — a census term that includes biological, step and adopted children — but climbs to 32% when unrelated children, such as foster kids, are included.) More than 70,000 children in California are being raised by gay couples.

What about the notion that children raised by gay parents suffer as a result? This too turns out to be unsubstantiated.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health issued a report in 2002, the most recent comprehensive review of gay-parenting studies. It found no meaningful differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.

The committee reviewed scientific literature encompassing three broad sets of studies. The first set assessed the attitudes, behavior and adjustments of lesbian and gay parents and found, according to the AAP report, "more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers." Likewise, the research showed that lesbian mothers scored the same as heterosexual mothers in "self-esteem, psychologic adjustment and attitudes toward child rearing."

The second set of studies looked at the gender identity and sexual orientation of children raised by gay parents. The committee report found that none of the several hundred children studied evinced gender identity confusion, wished to be of the other sex or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences were found in the toy, game, activity, dress or friendship preferences of boys or girls with gay parents compared with those with heterosexual parents, nor any differences in sexual attraction or self-identification as gay.

The third research area discussed in the report covers children's emotional and social development. These studies have primarily compared children raised by lesbians who are divorced with children of divorced heterosexual mothers. No differences have been found in personality measures, peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success and quality of family relationships. The studies suggest only one meaningful difference: Children of lesbian parents are "more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual."

The American Academy of Pediatrics report is the most prestigious of its kind, but it is not the only one. Most reviews of the social science research reach the same conclusion: The proposition that children suffer when raised by gay parents is without basis. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the only significant difference between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual couples is that the former feel freer to explore occupations and behaviors unhampered by traditional gender roles — a good thing, perhaps.

I won't do your homework for you. If you think that marital relationships aren't strengthened by the inate differences between men and women and that those strengths don't benefit the children of those relationships you're fooling yourself and blinded by your own agenda. Gays have increased rates of depression, suicide, HIV, aids, alcoholism, etc....certainly something there suggests issues.

you spoke too soon.....

Oh goody...we acknowledge increased rates of social psychosis, but it's because we're treated unfairly? Just how does the reason for an unfit parent make for a suddenly fit parent? So apparently kids are worth sacrifice because gay people feel entitled? You tell me...