Same Sex Marriage Legislation

Same Sex Legislation

The latest on what’s happening with the Same Sex Marriage Legislation

This bill was passed by a combined Committee (Judiciary and Health & Government Operations) hearing on Tuesday.  These two Committees were combined, which I am opposed, in an effort to avoid the possibility of the bill going to a referendum.  This bill will now move to the House Floor for testimony and to be voted on later this week.

Because this legislation could affect so many, if passed, it should be decided by the people and go to a referendum and not be decided by the politicians. 

I remain for traditional marriage and continue to believe it should be between one man and one woman. 

Delegate Glen Glass

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

HarfordLassie February 16, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Glad to hear rational minds prevailed.
franking February 16, 2012 at 01:33 AM
Dictatorial minds prevailed.
Casey A February 16, 2012 at 03:12 AM
There is nothing dictatorial about LGBT individuals fighting for legal equality. Eliminating discrimination and oppression is the exact opposite of being dictatorial.
Dadof2 February 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Equality for all. It's about time we allow men to marry men, women to marry women. Heck, we allow Democrats to marry Republicans, so why not same sex marriage?
FLRush February 16, 2012 at 04:30 PM
This needs to referendum and is not an issue that should be decided by just our legislators. I am for traditional marriage.
HarfordLassie February 16, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Throughout history the majority that possessed a right have fought against those who want equal rights. At one time white rich men ruled the world and women were property, black slavery was the norm, interracial marriage was not allowed. Far right Christian conservatives want to take us back to that world and spend time introducing legislation that restricts the rights of others to make their own personal and medical choices & enjoy equal rights under the law, even rewriting the history of the founding fathers. We are not a theocracy. I don't fear gays who want to marry. I fear legislators who want to "take back" the country to another time when discrimination and inequality was the norm.
Wings February 16, 2012 at 06:02 PM
Regardless if you believe in gay marriages or not, they should have the same rights as the rest of us. As it stands a gay couple can be together for 30 years and if something happens to their partner they are treated like a friend and nothing more. They can not make life decisions such as life support being turned off etc. If this person is their only family they have, then these decisions are left to hospitals. I have seen first hand the pain this causes to someone who has been with someone for so long and loved with all of their heart, only to be treated like a nobody when the other got very sick and died. Also they are not able to collect social security from the others death. Everyone wants to sit back and say "it's not right to be gay so they shouldn't have rights". Who are YOU to judge? I see on the news every night plenty of people who do things that TRULY aren't right (child molestation, murder) yet they have rights. Even from behind bars they have more rights than a gay person.
Casey A February 16, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Civil rights should not be put to a public vote. If they were, many states in the south would likely still be segregated. The rights of the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
franking February 16, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Treated like a friend by whom? The issues mentioned can be taken care of by a will and a medical power of attorney. SCOTUS decisions concerning marriage (such as Loving) concern a link between marriage and procreation. If we divorce that concept from marriage, than it's discriminatory to not allow a woman who is raising a child with the help of her mother or father from marrying that parent. It's discriminatory to keep two brothers, two sisters or a brother and a sister from marrying. Sibblings sometimes live together for many years and are all each of them have. They can't collect the other's SS because there is nothing inherent to the relationship (like children) that prevents them equally contributing to their own SS. But as long as we're going to change that, many of these people could also benefit from marriage, so it would be bigoted to not allow it.
Casey A February 16, 2012 at 07:18 PM
There are over 1,100 federal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy that gay couples cannot. Most of these cannot be taken care of by a will or medical power of attorney (Social Security benefits, pensions, etc.). Granting marriage at the state level is a good first step towards having the federal government recognize same-sex marriage. As for procreation, there are many heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. Does that mean they should not be allowed to marry? Finally, you mention incest. When 2 people who are related have a child together, the child is very likely going to be harmed because of genetic factors. No one is harmed by gay marriage. Besides, there are laws against incest. Those laws would not change by allowing gay marriage.
Dadof2 February 16, 2012 at 07:30 PM
So well said, Joan. Thanks... I totally agree! Everyone needs to contact their legislatures NOW (and ongoing) and let them know how you feel. If you don't know who your elected officials are, follow this link and GET YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS HEARD: http://mdelect.net/
Dadof2 February 16, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Again, very well said. Thank you!
franking February 16, 2012 at 07:47 PM
I didn't mention incest. That may or may not occur between family members whether they're married or not. Isn't this about love and fairness and not just about sex? Marriage is either about procreation, or it's not. If it's not, laws concerning marriage between related people should be changed, too. We should also allow marriages between multiple people, in order to not discriminate against Muslims, fundamentalist Mormons, and bi-sexuals who would like a male and female spouse. True that not all heterosexual married couples produce children, but it is the relationship that creates life. Some people think that is special enough to be worthy of its own distinction.
Casey A February 16, 2012 at 08:04 PM
You say that marriage needs to include procreation. Does that mean that heterosexual couples who are sterile should not be allowed to marry, either?
HarfordLassie February 16, 2012 at 08:06 PM
"True that not all heterosexual married couples produce children, but it is the relationship that creates life" - What kind of "life" are you suggesting is created? What happens to this "life" on divorce? Should we ban divorce so we don't kill this "life"? What should the penalty be for killing this "life"?
Dadof2 February 16, 2012 at 08:51 PM
So, in your opinion, marriage IS (or should be) about pro-creation? Hmmm, well, let's take this a little bit further. If a man or woman is physically unable to procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to be married... right? And, shouldn't there then be "penalties" for married couples who do NOT procreate? Sort of the Anti-China approach to population issues, I guess. The nation's population should grow by leaps and bounds... "Jon & Kate plus Eight" would be an every day, common reality. Hmmm, I guess we shouldn't worry about food supply... or about infrastructure to support the population explosion... and our educational facilities should be fine with what? 60, 80, 100 students per elementary school teacher? We might need to build more places of worship, voting places, hospitals, detention centers and prisons. Need I go on? So, seriously? Do you think that marriage, today, is about procreating? You're preaching to the wrong choir.
franking February 16, 2012 at 09:08 PM
The life that is created is children, and they are the reason state recognition of marriage as a civil matter began in the first place. It's to legally protect the interest of children which are the natural and inherent consequence of such a union, and the parent who gives up some or all of their own career to raise the next generation of tax payer, creating a situation for that primary care taker parent that lacks earning potential balance if they were to split up. Sure, not all of them have children, just as not all people who become eligible and collect unemployment need the money to live on, but unemployment was still created to help people get by between jobs. While it's true that homosexuals can adopt or have children with others and raise them in homosexual relationships, so too can three roommates, two brothers, three sisters, or a mother and daughter.
Wings February 17, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Treated like a friend as in when you visit them at the hospital you are looked at a friend visiting not a husband or wife. Your voice means nothing to them because you have no rights to their medical care. A will and power of attorney is all fine and well. But not everyone thinks that far ahead. It all just needs to change.
Deeg February 18, 2012 at 04:54 AM
This is the civil rights issue of our generation (the baby boomers). Years from now, our grandchildren will be appalled that this was even an issue, the same as women voting and segregation was to our parents and grandparents. "The times they are a changin" applies to issues of all generations. It's called progress. I am more than happy to be a part of a change that gives equal rights to all citizens.
franking February 18, 2012 at 05:29 AM
The boomers have done enough damage. The least greatest generation. Unfortunately much of gen x may be too wounded from being raised by selfish boomers to put humpty dumpty back together again.
Peter Nincompoop February 22, 2012 at 04:00 AM
marriage is about love and the desire to share ones life with another, under your definition if a man and woman want to get married but do not want to have children or are not able to have children than they should not be allowed to marry.
Peter Nincompoop February 22, 2012 at 04:00 AM
correction governments began regulating marriages to keep black men from marrying white women
Peter Nincompoop February 22, 2012 at 04:05 AM
The reason governments began issuing marriage licenses was to prevent blacks from marrying whites, 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.


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