45 years ago this week the Maryland General Assembly voted to repeal the state's ban on inter-racial marriage. The state hardly led on this issue, the state only passed the repeal once the Supreme Court accepted the Loving v. Virginia case that ultimately resulted in the declaration that all bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional.
Last week the Maryland House of Delegates voted 72-67 to legalize marriage equality. Today the state Senate voted 25-22 to pass the measure. Governor O'Malley has promised to sign the bill.
This is historic. Maryland now becomes one of only 8 states to allow same sex marriage. More important, it's one of the very few to have have legalized same sex marriage via the legislature rather than through the courts. It is a distinction that will long be remembered. Maryland tends to be a cautious state, but on this issue the state has become a leader.
The law is sure to be subject to a petition challenge placing it before the voters in November. This the right of every Marylander. Proponents are worried. In every state where same sex marriage has been placed on the ballot it has been rejected. But of course, one state has to be the first to end that streak - perhaps it will be Maryland.
The most significant bloc of opposition in the state is African-American voters. Their collective vote will decide the fate of the law. There is a tremendous opportunity for Lt. Governor Anthony Brown to become a point person for the O'Malley administration arguing for public support of the measure. It wouldn't hurt if President Obama abandoned his support for civil unions and endorsed same sex marriage as well...
For now, however, Governor Martin O'Malley deserves credit for forcefully backing this measure. Last year his leadership was absent and that absence was felt. This year, though likely motivated by his own presidential aspirations, O'Malley staked his reputation on passing this bill - and it passed.
Now that battle moves on to the ballot box. It's unfortunate and inappropriate that a question of basic civil rights will be subject to voter approval- but such is the law of the state.
Onward.
Showing posts with label same sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same sex marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Same Sex Marriage Vote was a Test of Character
With a vote of 72-67 Maryland's House of Delegates passed legislation that would legalize same sex marriage in the Free State. The measure will now move to the state Senate where it passed last year. Early indications are the measure could see a vote by mid-week.
Even as the bill moved the floor of the House last week, it was unclear whether the votes were there to pass the measure. With a key supporter in the hospital the late support of a few members became key. Though the bill must pass the Senate and is likely to face a petition challenge and a referendum in November there are a few folks who warrant specific recognition for the role they played in the House vote - Dels. John Bohanan and A. Wade Kach and Governor Martin O'Malley and Lt. Governor Anthony Brown.
Del. John Bohanan (District 29B)
Bohanan stands out from most other supporters in very significant ways. Bohanan represents southern St. Mary's county. The county is the fatest growing county in the state and home to the Patuxent Naval Air station. The large military presence has steadily changed the political dynamic of the county. Once a solidly Democratic area (in local elections), St. Mary's has been trending Republican. Since 2008 the GOP has added 4,000 voters to its rolls - twice that of the Democrats. At present, Democrats and Republicans claim an equal share of voters. In 2010, Republicans swept all but one seat on the county commission and Bohanan won a narrow re-election against a very novice challenger. For Bohanan, the safe bet would have been to vote against same sex marriage. He would have paid no penalty. When asked about his decision to support the bill, Bohanan said “Once I began to look at this through the eyes of my own kids and other young people, it became pretty clear... You want them to have love, and if that’s how they want to express it, you want them to be able to do it openly.” Bohanan is likely to see serious political fallout in his home district. What he deserves is recognition for making the right call in an era when too many politicians care only about winning the next election.
Del. A. Wade Kach (5B)
Kach was one of two Republicans in the House to support the measure and as such their votes were crucial to ensuring passage (the other Republican, Bob Costa of District 33B, merits an honorable mention). In his role as chair of the Democratic Governors Association Governor O'Malley has been merciless in his attacks on Republicans as right wing extremists. Kach's conservative credentials stretch back to his college years when he was chair of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans. There is little doubt that when O'Malley is speaking about the dinosaur wing of the Republican party he is thinking of folks like Kach. Kach could've denied O'Malley this crucial legislative victory. In doing so, he would dealt an embarrassing blow to O'Malley's future aspirations. I'm sure for Kach the temptation was great - instead he did what he felt was right. Perhaps the best part of Kach's support, however, was his impassioned conservative defense of same sex marriage. Kach said that listening to the testimony of gay parents ultimately changed his mind. He then linked his vote to his pro-life beliefs, "As a pro-life Republican, I believe it’s my responsibility to make sure children are taken care of... If you care about children" vote for this bill. Kach reminds us that for many people, being pro-life is not rooted in a particular religious belief but is rather an issue of civil rights and protecting the vulnerable. By linking the two issues Kach has contributed greatly to the conservative argument for same sex marriage.
Martin O'Malley, Governor
After standing on the sidelines last year O'Malley realized his mistake and decided last summer that he would personally push for marriage equality in Maryland. O'Malley has national political aspirations and it would be easy to dismiss his decision as a simple political calculation - after all New York governor Andrew Cuomo was able to get same sex marriage through a Republican state Senate. But O'Malley actually took a big risk - something he rarely does. O'Malley made legalization of same sex marriage his highest profile priority in the 2012 legislative session - having no idea whether it would pass. Had the House again killed the measure O'Malley would have been viewed a failure. His ability to govern his own party, never mind his state, would have been called into question. Yet he decided to quite literally stake his reputation on passing this bill. He deserves tremendous credit for the House vote.
Anthony Brown, Lt. Governor
This may seem an odd choice, but hear me out... As Lt. Governor, Brown had no reason to say anything about the vote in the House. Brown could've stayed silent and that may have been the politically wise thing to do. The Democratic party in Maryland is divided over the issue of same sex marriage. While white Democrats clearly support marriage equality, Black Democrats just as clearly oppose it. This year, same as last, Many African-American religious leaders - especially in Brown's home turf of PG county - spoke out against gay marriage. Brown is very likely to seek the party nomination for governor in 2014. No Lt. Governor has made that jump since the office was reinstated in 1970. Given the likelihood of a four man race I consider Brown to be the early favorite in a primary owing mostly to the substantial African-American vote in the state. Just after the House approved the same sex marriage bill Brown issued this statement: "The Maryland House of Delegates has cast a historic vote in favor of stronger families, bringing us as close as Maryland has ever been to true marriage equality. When two people come together in union, regardless of gender, and commit themselves to loving and supporting one another, they deserve the privileges and the responsibilities of marriage." But 60% of black voters in Maryland oppose same sex marriage. Brown could've remained silent, but by coming out in favor he could be a crucial voice in the effort to fight the referendum effort in November. But he does so at the risk of weakening his support among a crucial voting bloc. That's political courage.
To be certain, there are many other members who deserve some recognition. Personally I have to wonder how any delegate could've voted no after Del. Maggie McIntosh's deeply moving recollection of her coming out and what that meant for her personally and professionally - but 67 members did. Certainly I do not wish to diminish the efforts of any lawmaker who made passage of this bill possible. But in this day, I think it is worth taking a minute to recognize folks who are willing to act in a manner that may be against their immediate best interest in pursuit of the best interests of the state.
Even as the bill moved the floor of the House last week, it was unclear whether the votes were there to pass the measure. With a key supporter in the hospital the late support of a few members became key. Though the bill must pass the Senate and is likely to face a petition challenge and a referendum in November there are a few folks who warrant specific recognition for the role they played in the House vote - Dels. John Bohanan and A. Wade Kach and Governor Martin O'Malley and Lt. Governor Anthony Brown.
Del. John Bohanan (District 29B)
Bohanan stands out from most other supporters in very significant ways. Bohanan represents southern St. Mary's county. The county is the fatest growing county in the state and home to the Patuxent Naval Air station. The large military presence has steadily changed the political dynamic of the county. Once a solidly Democratic area (in local elections), St. Mary's has been trending Republican. Since 2008 the GOP has added 4,000 voters to its rolls - twice that of the Democrats. At present, Democrats and Republicans claim an equal share of voters. In 2010, Republicans swept all but one seat on the county commission and Bohanan won a narrow re-election against a very novice challenger. For Bohanan, the safe bet would have been to vote against same sex marriage. He would have paid no penalty. When asked about his decision to support the bill, Bohanan said “Once I began to look at this through the eyes of my own kids and other young people, it became pretty clear... You want them to have love, and if that’s how they want to express it, you want them to be able to do it openly.” Bohanan is likely to see serious political fallout in his home district. What he deserves is recognition for making the right call in an era when too many politicians care only about winning the next election.
Del. A. Wade Kach (5B)
Kach was one of two Republicans in the House to support the measure and as such their votes were crucial to ensuring passage (the other Republican, Bob Costa of District 33B, merits an honorable mention). In his role as chair of the Democratic Governors Association Governor O'Malley has been merciless in his attacks on Republicans as right wing extremists. Kach's conservative credentials stretch back to his college years when he was chair of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans. There is little doubt that when O'Malley is speaking about the dinosaur wing of the Republican party he is thinking of folks like Kach. Kach could've denied O'Malley this crucial legislative victory. In doing so, he would dealt an embarrassing blow to O'Malley's future aspirations. I'm sure for Kach the temptation was great - instead he did what he felt was right. Perhaps the best part of Kach's support, however, was his impassioned conservative defense of same sex marriage. Kach said that listening to the testimony of gay parents ultimately changed his mind. He then linked his vote to his pro-life beliefs, "As a pro-life Republican, I believe it’s my responsibility to make sure children are taken care of... If you care about children" vote for this bill. Kach reminds us that for many people, being pro-life is not rooted in a particular religious belief but is rather an issue of civil rights and protecting the vulnerable. By linking the two issues Kach has contributed greatly to the conservative argument for same sex marriage.
Martin O'Malley, Governor
After standing on the sidelines last year O'Malley realized his mistake and decided last summer that he would personally push for marriage equality in Maryland. O'Malley has national political aspirations and it would be easy to dismiss his decision as a simple political calculation - after all New York governor Andrew Cuomo was able to get same sex marriage through a Republican state Senate. But O'Malley actually took a big risk - something he rarely does. O'Malley made legalization of same sex marriage his highest profile priority in the 2012 legislative session - having no idea whether it would pass. Had the House again killed the measure O'Malley would have been viewed a failure. His ability to govern his own party, never mind his state, would have been called into question. Yet he decided to quite literally stake his reputation on passing this bill. He deserves tremendous credit for the House vote.
Anthony Brown, Lt. Governor
This may seem an odd choice, but hear me out... As Lt. Governor, Brown had no reason to say anything about the vote in the House. Brown could've stayed silent and that may have been the politically wise thing to do. The Democratic party in Maryland is divided over the issue of same sex marriage. While white Democrats clearly support marriage equality, Black Democrats just as clearly oppose it. This year, same as last, Many African-American religious leaders - especially in Brown's home turf of PG county - spoke out against gay marriage. Brown is very likely to seek the party nomination for governor in 2014. No Lt. Governor has made that jump since the office was reinstated in 1970. Given the likelihood of a four man race I consider Brown to be the early favorite in a primary owing mostly to the substantial African-American vote in the state. Just after the House approved the same sex marriage bill Brown issued this statement: "The Maryland House of Delegates has cast a historic vote in favor of stronger families, bringing us as close as Maryland has ever been to true marriage equality. When two people come together in union, regardless of gender, and commit themselves to loving and supporting one another, they deserve the privileges and the responsibilities of marriage." But 60% of black voters in Maryland oppose same sex marriage. Brown could've remained silent, but by coming out in favor he could be a crucial voice in the effort to fight the referendum effort in November. But he does so at the risk of weakening his support among a crucial voting bloc. That's political courage.
To be certain, there are many other members who deserve some recognition. Personally I have to wonder how any delegate could've voted no after Del. Maggie McIntosh's deeply moving recollection of her coming out and what that meant for her personally and professionally - but 67 members did. Certainly I do not wish to diminish the efforts of any lawmaker who made passage of this bill possible. But in this day, I think it is worth taking a minute to recognize folks who are willing to act in a manner that may be against their immediate best interest in pursuit of the best interests of the state.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Decision Time on Marriage Equality
As a vote nears on marriage equality in Maryland it remains unclear whether the votes are there to pass the measure.
I offer the following as encouragement to wavering Democrats and Republicans.
For Democrats:
Writing in 2003 Rep. John Lewis, one of America's greatest heroes of the Civil Rights movement, declared in no uncertain terms “I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.”
For Republicans:
Ted Olson, Solicitor General under George W. Bush wrote this in 2010 "Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
Even Dick Cheney support same-sex marriage!
For Democrats and Republicans:
Fifty years ago, many states declared that African-Americans were not free to marry the person of their choosing. For a reason as arbitrary as the color of one's skin, a basic civil right was denied. Today, even more states deny the right to marry based on sexual orientation - is that truly any less arbitrary?
In Loving v Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that outlawed bans on interracial marriage in the U.S., the court declared marriage to be a fundamental civil right. I would ask every delegate two simple questions - Will you stand up for equality? Will you support this fundamental civil right?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "no State shall... deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." Your vote today will determine whether that amendment has any meaning.
I offer the following as encouragement to wavering Democrats and Republicans.
For Democrats:
Writing in 2003 Rep. John Lewis, one of America's greatest heroes of the Civil Rights movement, declared in no uncertain terms “I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.”
For Republicans:
Ted Olson, Solicitor General under George W. Bush wrote this in 2010 "Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
Even Dick Cheney support same-sex marriage!
For Democrats and Republicans:
Fifty years ago, many states declared that African-Americans were not free to marry the person of their choosing. For a reason as arbitrary as the color of one's skin, a basic civil right was denied. Today, even more states deny the right to marry based on sexual orientation - is that truly any less arbitrary?
In Loving v Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that outlawed bans on interracial marriage in the U.S., the court declared marriage to be a fundamental civil right. I would ask every delegate two simple questions - Will you stand up for equality? Will you support this fundamental civil right?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "no State shall... deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." Your vote today will determine whether that amendment has any meaning.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Down to the Wire on Marriage Equality
A joint committee in the House of Delegates voted 25-18 Tuesday night to send the marriage equality bill to the floor. On Wednesday the bill was held over until Thursday. Proponents say they are a few votes short of the 71 needed to pass, but the speed with which the measure is moving toward a vote suggests the votes are either there or nearly there.
Recent efforts to court Republican support bore fruit when Anne Arundel Republican Bob Costa voted in favor of the bill. Republican Del. Pat Hogan (Frederick) had indicated that he was undecided, but has since declared his intention to vote "No." Democratic Del. Sam Arora continues to confuse - last year he supported marriage equality, then changed his mind and opposed it in committee, and then changed his mind and supported it on the floor. Arora abstained during the committee vote on Tuesday.
Arora and other members of the committee who subsequently voted against the bill, voiced support throughout the hearing for amendments that would make civil unions legal in Maryland rather than legalizing same sex marriage. All efforts to amend the bill were defeated.
The delay in floor consideration will give marriage equality opponents ample time to prepare amendments to the bill. The votes on the amendments will be an early indicator of whether the 71 votes needed for passage have been secured.
Several delegates have argued that the issue of same sex marriage should be decided by voters at referendum. Of course, we elect members of the Assembly based on the assumption that they are capable of making decisions on our behalf. Never mind that nearly all bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor are subject to petition and referendum by the voters. Voters will have multiple chances to be heard on this issue - in the petition phase, in any resultant referendum, and in the 2014 election. In the meantime, members of the Assembly were elected for the express purpose of considering legislation and casting votes. Those who lack the courage or will to cast "the tough votes" need to do the folks of Maryland a favor and let someone else run for their seat in 2014.
On a final note, if the General Assembly does pass this bill then Martin O'Malley deserves a tremendous amount of credit for putting the full weight of his office behind the measure. I am a frequent critic of O'Malley - last year over his silence on marriage equality, in the summer and fall for his disgracefully gerrymandered congressional districts, and this session for a very regressive package of tax increases, and I'm especially bothered by O'Malley's happy descent into the polarizing Us v Them rhetoric of the extreme partisans who control the two national parties. But in this instance and on this issue O'Malley has literally staked his reputation on the legalization of same sex marriage in the Free State. He should be commended and, if the measure becomes law, credited.
The severe divisions that this measure will reveal within the state's Democratic coalition will be an issue for another day.
Recent efforts to court Republican support bore fruit when Anne Arundel Republican Bob Costa voted in favor of the bill. Republican Del. Pat Hogan (Frederick) had indicated that he was undecided, but has since declared his intention to vote "No." Democratic Del. Sam Arora continues to confuse - last year he supported marriage equality, then changed his mind and opposed it in committee, and then changed his mind and supported it on the floor. Arora abstained during the committee vote on Tuesday.
Arora and other members of the committee who subsequently voted against the bill, voiced support throughout the hearing for amendments that would make civil unions legal in Maryland rather than legalizing same sex marriage. All efforts to amend the bill were defeated.
The delay in floor consideration will give marriage equality opponents ample time to prepare amendments to the bill. The votes on the amendments will be an early indicator of whether the 71 votes needed for passage have been secured.
Several delegates have argued that the issue of same sex marriage should be decided by voters at referendum. Of course, we elect members of the Assembly based on the assumption that they are capable of making decisions on our behalf. Never mind that nearly all bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor are subject to petition and referendum by the voters. Voters will have multiple chances to be heard on this issue - in the petition phase, in any resultant referendum, and in the 2014 election. In the meantime, members of the Assembly were elected for the express purpose of considering legislation and casting votes. Those who lack the courage or will to cast "the tough votes" need to do the folks of Maryland a favor and let someone else run for their seat in 2014.
On a final note, if the General Assembly does pass this bill then Martin O'Malley deserves a tremendous amount of credit for putting the full weight of his office behind the measure. I am a frequent critic of O'Malley - last year over his silence on marriage equality, in the summer and fall for his disgracefully gerrymandered congressional districts, and this session for a very regressive package of tax increases, and I'm especially bothered by O'Malley's happy descent into the polarizing Us v Them rhetoric of the extreme partisans who control the two national parties. But in this instance and on this issue O'Malley has literally staked his reputation on the legalization of same sex marriage in the Free State. He should be commended and, if the measure becomes law, credited.
The severe divisions that this measure will reveal within the state's Democratic coalition will be an issue for another day.
Friday, October 14, 2011
O'Malley's Amazing Opportunity
Update:
Martin O'Malley has decided to ask African-American voters to wait at least another decade for fair representation in Maryland... and apparently African-American leaders are ready to give up and say "thank you." At least Donna Edwards had the courage to protest, and hats off to the folks who walked out on the caucus capitulation meeting...
So when asked to choose between creating a third majority-minority district or creating a marginally Democratic district in Western Maryland, O'Malley decided that the mere chance of electing another white Democrat mattered more than boosting minority representation in Congress. So much for people asking Andrew Cuomo who?
Original Post:
Just last night I wrote that I did not envy Martin O'Malley and the choice he needs to make in the state redistricting battle.
Well that was so yesterday... O'Malley has just been presented with a golden opportunity to win and win big. Just as minority groups increased the pressure on presidential aspirant O'Malley to create a third majority-minority district in Maryland and on gubernatorial aspirant Doug Gansler (State Attorney General) to not support the legality of the proposed map (under a Voting Rights challenge) word comes that Marylanders for Marriage Equality will make a push for marriage equality legislation during next week's special session of the General Assembly.
Whether they realize it or not, Marylanders for Marriage Equality may have solved O'Malley's redistricting problem and delivered a big boost to his presidential aspirations. The real test will be whether O'Malley is ready to deal.
Marriage equality legislation died in the House of Delegates last Spring largely due to opposition from African-American community leaders and delegates in the Prince Georges and Montgomery County area - the same folks angry about the proposed redistricting map.
O'Malley needs to make the following deal:
He needs to propose a new map that creates a third majority-minority district in the Montgomery/Prince Georges region. In exchange for the new map, African-American leaders agree not to oppose marriage equality legislation and area senators and delegates agree to support the bill during the special session. This is a good deal for O'Malley and for the African-American community.
O'Malley scores a significant victory in the fight for marriage equality, earning him the respect of national Democratic party leaders and party activists (also known as donors and primary voters). African-American delegates and senators as well as community leaders score a victory as well, by agreeing to support a measure that in no way harms their communities they likely gain a new African-American member of Congress.
So what's the downside? Creating a third majority-minority district would mean restoring the 6th Congressional district to a Republican district. The 330,000 Montgomery County voters that were to be added to the 6th would be removed and the voters in Frederick and most of Carroll county would be put back. This frees O'Malley to reconfigure the 8th congressional district. Presently, the 8th district is 37% minority, under the current proposal it would fall to 25% minority. O'Malley could restore the minority voters to the 8th, add additional voters from the 5th Congressional district (in exchange for some Anne Arundel voters currently in the 4th), and in pretty short order turn the 8th district into a majority-minority district.
Martin O'Malley has decided to ask African-American voters to wait at least another decade for fair representation in Maryland... and apparently African-American leaders are ready to give up and say "thank you." At least Donna Edwards had the courage to protest, and hats off to the folks who walked out on the caucus capitulation meeting...
So when asked to choose between creating a third majority-minority district or creating a marginally Democratic district in Western Maryland, O'Malley decided that the mere chance of electing another white Democrat mattered more than boosting minority representation in Congress. So much for people asking Andrew Cuomo who?
Original Post:
Just last night I wrote that I did not envy Martin O'Malley and the choice he needs to make in the state redistricting battle.
Well that was so yesterday... O'Malley has just been presented with a golden opportunity to win and win big. Just as minority groups increased the pressure on presidential aspirant O'Malley to create a third majority-minority district in Maryland and on gubernatorial aspirant Doug Gansler (State Attorney General) to not support the legality of the proposed map (under a Voting Rights challenge) word comes that Marylanders for Marriage Equality will make a push for marriage equality legislation during next week's special session of the General Assembly.
Whether they realize it or not, Marylanders for Marriage Equality may have solved O'Malley's redistricting problem and delivered a big boost to his presidential aspirations. The real test will be whether O'Malley is ready to deal.
Marriage equality legislation died in the House of Delegates last Spring largely due to opposition from African-American community leaders and delegates in the Prince Georges and Montgomery County area - the same folks angry about the proposed redistricting map.
O'Malley needs to make the following deal:
He needs to propose a new map that creates a third majority-minority district in the Montgomery/Prince Georges region. In exchange for the new map, African-American leaders agree not to oppose marriage equality legislation and area senators and delegates agree to support the bill during the special session. This is a good deal for O'Malley and for the African-American community.
O'Malley scores a significant victory in the fight for marriage equality, earning him the respect of national Democratic party leaders and party activists (also known as donors and primary voters). African-American delegates and senators as well as community leaders score a victory as well, by agreeing to support a measure that in no way harms their communities they likely gain a new African-American member of Congress.
So what's the downside? Creating a third majority-minority district would mean restoring the 6th Congressional district to a Republican district. The 330,000 Montgomery County voters that were to be added to the 6th would be removed and the voters in Frederick and most of Carroll county would be put back. This frees O'Malley to reconfigure the 8th congressional district. Presently, the 8th district is 37% minority, under the current proposal it would fall to 25% minority. O'Malley could restore the minority voters to the 8th, add additional voters from the 5th Congressional district (in exchange for some Anne Arundel voters currently in the 4th), and in pretty short order turn the 8th district into a majority-minority district.
 |
| Proposed Redistricting Map |
This does mean that O'Malley would fail to deliver a new House seat to the Democratic party, harming their quest to reclaim the majority. But no party leader would hold that against him. No party activist would view this as a bad deal. In fact, O'Malley would likely earn tremendous respect for being willing to cut such a deal to secure marriage equality. What Democrat could possibly be upset over the twofer of marriage equality and increased minority representation?
Additionally, one can imagine a future debate where O'Malley decries the Republican party's petty partisanship and points out that while Republicans were engaging in egregious acts of gerrymandering in Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere O'Malley rose above the partisan fray and put the interests of the people of his state ahead of all other considerations.
I have been critical of O'Malley for what often seems a lack of bold leadership and risk taking - with this deal all of that past criticism would fall away. If O'Malley can strike this deal he would demonstrate that he is not only ready for prime time, but that he'll be must see TV in the quest for 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. If he pulls this off, people will start asking Andrew Cuomo who?
(An important side note - the one loser in all of this would be Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen is a rising star in the Democratic party, but he would likely lose his district. But any effort to create a new majority-minority district would imperil one of the state's incumbent Democrats - this is simply unavoidable. Of course, Van Hollen may want to consider 2016 and the possibility of an open Senate seat.)
Monday, October 3, 2011
In Maryland, A New Push for Marriage Equality will Face Old Foes... and Friends
The Washington Post is reporting that the group Marylanders for Marriage Equality will soon launch a new web campaigned aimed at winning over support for same-sex marriage legislation during the state's next legislative session in early 2012. Mimicking a similar, and seemingly successful, ad campaign in New York, the new web ads will feature high profile folks offering their support for marriage equality.
As reported in the Post:
Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland has been passed by the Maryland House of Delegates in the past - only to die in the more conservative state Senate. In 2011, however, the Senate provided a shock to the system by passing the bill by a margin of 25-21. When faced with the reality of casting a vote that would legalize same-sex marriage, several former supporters in the House of Delegates succumbed to pressure (largely from religious groups) and an odd coalition of Republicans, conservative Democrats, and African-American delegates effectively killed the bill.
After receiving criticism for standing on the sidelines during much of the debate, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley recently announced his support for marriage equality and his intention to sponsor a bill in the 2012 legislative session.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have openly and frequently and passionately expressed my support for marriage equality and have criticized O'Malley for his lack of support in the past - and I would appear in a web ad supporting marriage equality if ever asked - but I am not convinced that the 2012 legislative session will be any more amenable to legalizing same-sex marriage and I worry that the web ads could serve to mobilize a backlash.
The General Assembly is currently reeling from the highly successful petition effort to halt the Maryland Dream Act and I do not see members of the Assembly eager to face another public repudiation.
Additionally, I think the Senate may be a less friendly place for the legislation in 2012. During a recent conversation with a Maryland state Senator (who shall remain nameless) I was told that several Senators who had previously voted "Yes" in 2011 are under significant pressure to vote "No" in 2012 - and a few of them have indicated that they are leaning toward voting "No." Two defections would produce a tie, three would kill the bill - only 19 votes are needed to filibuster.
When asked whether O'Malley's support would be sufficient to ensure passage of the marriage equality bill, the Senator simply replied "O'Malley is no Cuomo."
The American public has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage, Marylanders for MArriage Equality have lined-up an impressive group of allies - especially Tessa Hill-Alston, president of the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP. Only time will tell if it will be enough to overcome the deeply entrenched opposition that worked so effectively and quickly to defeat the measure in 2011.
Stay tuned...
As reported in the Post:
"Organizers insist the web campaign is only loosely patterned on that of New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) pushed a same-sex marriage bill through the legislature in June. About 50 of the 30-second videos were produced in the run-up to the votes there."But certainly they are hoping for a similar outcome.
Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland has been passed by the Maryland House of Delegates in the past - only to die in the more conservative state Senate. In 2011, however, the Senate provided a shock to the system by passing the bill by a margin of 25-21. When faced with the reality of casting a vote that would legalize same-sex marriage, several former supporters in the House of Delegates succumbed to pressure (largely from religious groups) and an odd coalition of Republicans, conservative Democrats, and African-American delegates effectively killed the bill.
After receiving criticism for standing on the sidelines during much of the debate, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley recently announced his support for marriage equality and his intention to sponsor a bill in the 2012 legislative session.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have openly and frequently and passionately expressed my support for marriage equality and have criticized O'Malley for his lack of support in the past - and I would appear in a web ad supporting marriage equality if ever asked - but I am not convinced that the 2012 legislative session will be any more amenable to legalizing same-sex marriage and I worry that the web ads could serve to mobilize a backlash.
The General Assembly is currently reeling from the highly successful petition effort to halt the Maryland Dream Act and I do not see members of the Assembly eager to face another public repudiation.
Additionally, I think the Senate may be a less friendly place for the legislation in 2012. During a recent conversation with a Maryland state Senator (who shall remain nameless) I was told that several Senators who had previously voted "Yes" in 2011 are under significant pressure to vote "No" in 2012 - and a few of them have indicated that they are leaning toward voting "No." Two defections would produce a tie, three would kill the bill - only 19 votes are needed to filibuster.
When asked whether O'Malley's support would be sufficient to ensure passage of the marriage equality bill, the Senator simply replied "O'Malley is no Cuomo."
The American public has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage, Marylanders for MArriage Equality have lined-up an impressive group of allies - especially Tessa Hill-Alston, president of the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP. Only time will tell if it will be enough to overcome the deeply entrenched opposition that worked so effectively and quickly to defeat the measure in 2011.
Stay tuned...
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thank You Governor O'Malley
As expected, Governor O'Malley has announced his intentions to sponsor same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland.
I have been very critical of O'Malley and his lack of leadership on this issue during the 2011 legislative session. I also believe that the only reason he decided to support the bill was the active role played by Gov. Cuomo in New York when the state legislature legalized same sex marriage earlier this summer. I'll add that given the incredible success of the petition drive to place the Maryland DREAM Act on the ballot in 2012 the General Assembly may be hesitant to pass another bill that would most certainly trigger another petition drive and another ballot initiative - meaning that 2011 was really the year to get behind the bill.
But.... the bill has a far greater chance of passing with O'Malley's full and vocal support and given the controversy that this is likely to cause among Catholic and African-American religious leaders this represents a brave and bold decision by a governor who rarely takes political risks.
On behalf of all of us who are straight, but not narrow (minded) I say thank you Governor O'Malley for standing up for the simple, but essential concept of equality under the law. I stand with you and will certainly do whatever I can to support your legislation.
From O'Malley's Press Release:
"As a free and diverse people of many faiths, we choose to be governed under the law by certain fundamental principles or beliefs, among them “equal protection of the law” for every individual and the “free exercise” of religion without government intervention. In the 2012 legislative session, I will sponsor legislation that protects religious freedom and equality of marital rights under the law."
I have been very critical of O'Malley and his lack of leadership on this issue during the 2011 legislative session. I also believe that the only reason he decided to support the bill was the active role played by Gov. Cuomo in New York when the state legislature legalized same sex marriage earlier this summer. I'll add that given the incredible success of the petition drive to place the Maryland DREAM Act on the ballot in 2012 the General Assembly may be hesitant to pass another bill that would most certainly trigger another petition drive and another ballot initiative - meaning that 2011 was really the year to get behind the bill.
But.... the bill has a far greater chance of passing with O'Malley's full and vocal support and given the controversy that this is likely to cause among Catholic and African-American religious leaders this represents a brave and bold decision by a governor who rarely takes political risks.
On behalf of all of us who are straight, but not narrow (minded) I say thank you Governor O'Malley for standing up for the simple, but essential concept of equality under the law. I stand with you and will certainly do whatever I can to support your legislation.
From O'Malley's Press Release:
"As a free and diverse people of many faiths, we choose to be governed under the law by certain fundamental principles or beliefs, among them “equal protection of the law” for every individual and the “free exercise” of religion without government intervention. In the 2012 legislative session, I will sponsor legislation that protects religious freedom and equality of marital rights under the law."
Friday, March 11, 2011
Marriage Discrimination Comes Full Circle in Maryland
A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland died today in the House of Delegates. According to the Washington Post, the bill died as the result of opposition by Democrats in Southern Maryland (my home territory) and African-American Democrats from Prince Georges County who cited religious opposition to the bill among their constituents.
It is impossible to not see the sad irony of African-American lawmakers using religion as their justification for casting a vote against marriage equality. The arguments against interracial marriages were often steeped in religious rhetoric.
In June of 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, left their home state of Virginia and traveled to Washington, DC to get married. Interracial marriages were illegal in Virginia. Upon return to the state, the newlyweds were charged with violating state law. In January of 1959, the Lovings pled guilty, but their sentence was suspended after they agreed to leave the state.
The judge that presided over the case had this to say with regard to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
To be fair, many religious organizations eventually became the most vocal opponents of bans on interracial marriage, but the use of religious justifications by opponents of interracial marriage continued. Maryland banned interracial marriages until 1967.
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned bans on interracial marriage. The court determined that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Here we are 44 years later and we have simply decided to replace race with gender preference - otherwise, the justification, the discrimination and the denial of basic equality remains the same. What is different about the story today, however, is that the discrimination has come full circle and the once discriminated against have now joined the ranks of the discriminators. This is a sad day for Maryland.
It is impossible to not see the sad irony of African-American lawmakers using religion as their justification for casting a vote against marriage equality. The arguments against interracial marriages were often steeped in religious rhetoric.
In June of 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, left their home state of Virginia and traveled to Washington, DC to get married. Interracial marriages were illegal in Virginia. Upon return to the state, the newlyweds were charged with violating state law. In January of 1959, the Lovings pled guilty, but their sentence was suspended after they agreed to leave the state.
The judge that presided over the case had this to say with regard to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
To be fair, many religious organizations eventually became the most vocal opponents of bans on interracial marriage, but the use of religious justifications by opponents of interracial marriage continued. Maryland banned interracial marriages until 1967.
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned bans on interracial marriage. The court determined that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Here we are 44 years later and we have simply decided to replace race with gender preference - otherwise, the justification, the discrimination and the denial of basic equality remains the same. What is different about the story today, however, is that the discrimination has come full circle and the once discriminated against have now joined the ranks of the discriminators. This is a sad day for Maryland.
In Maryland, a Time to Lead
Maryland's House of Delegates will likely vote today on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. By most counts, the legislation lacks the 71 votes need to pass. I have already written extensively about this issue and stand by prior comments and criticisms of the many delegates who appear to be unprepared for the awesome responsibility of legislating.
Today, I simply want to ask every member of the House of Delegates to look forward, beyond this vote, beyond 2012 or 2014. Look 20 years into the future, a future where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere - a likely scenario given the dramatic changes in public opinion on the issue. Future generations will look to this era in American history with the same confusion and embarrassment that our generation looks to the era of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. That future generation will wonder how intolerance, hate, and bigotry could have so defined our public policy with regard to gender preference, much the same as we wonder how we ever believed that the color of one's skin should determine one's rights.
Many members of the General Assembly will have children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren among that future generation. I ask those members, what will you say when your child or grandchild ask what role you played in the fight for equality? Will you be able to say that you stood at the vanguard of the battle, that you cast a vote for equality that rippled across other states and set a new standard for tolerance? Or, will you lower your voice and your head and explain that when the time came to stand and be counted -- to lead -- you simply weren't up to the task?
Twenty years from now, will you be proud of the vote you'll cast today?
Today, I simply want to ask every member of the House of Delegates to look forward, beyond this vote, beyond 2012 or 2014. Look 20 years into the future, a future where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere - a likely scenario given the dramatic changes in public opinion on the issue. Future generations will look to this era in American history with the same confusion and embarrassment that our generation looks to the era of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. That future generation will wonder how intolerance, hate, and bigotry could have so defined our public policy with regard to gender preference, much the same as we wonder how we ever believed that the color of one's skin should determine one's rights.
Many members of the General Assembly will have children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren among that future generation. I ask those members, what will you say when your child or grandchild ask what role you played in the fight for equality? Will you be able to say that you stood at the vanguard of the battle, that you cast a vote for equality that rippled across other states and set a new standard for tolerance? Or, will you lower your voice and your head and explain that when the time came to stand and be counted -- to lead -- you simply weren't up to the task?
Twenty years from now, will you be proud of the vote you'll cast today?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
A Civics Lesson for Maryland's Leaders
I've thought of this important distinction quite a lot lately as Maryland's legislature has been considering a bill that would legalize same sex marriage. Similar bills had been introduced in the past, but they never survived Maryland's Senate - considered by many to be the more conservative half of the Maryland Assembly. When the legislation was introduced this year, political observers in the state again viewed the Senate as the challenge and the House of Delegates as more friendly territory. Then the conventional wisdom was upended. The state Senate passed the marriage equality legislation by a vote of 25-21 after little more than 2 weeks of wrangling. Shortly after passing in the Senate, it became clear that the House of Delegates was not nearly so friendly.
What was most surprising was that the bill was being derailed in the House not by vocal opponents of the measure, but rather by delegates who had openly supported, even co-sponsored the measure. Dels. Tiffany Alston and Jill Carter prevented a vote on the bill in the Judiciary committee because they were having second thoughts about a bill each co-sponsored. In the end, the bill was approved by the committee - Carter voted for it, but Alston voted against it complaining "This has not been the deliberative process that we normally engage in in this committee." Perhaps the committee could have deliberated more had she not staged a walk-out when the bill was up for consideration.
Another bill sponsor, Del. Sam Arora, suddenly announced that he was opposed to the bill he sponsored and would vote against it on the floor. Two days later he announced that he once again supported the bill that he had co-sponsored.
All of this intrigue is likely the result of a simple gamble taken by many delegates. They assumed that same sex marriage would die in the Senate, as always, and they would never be called upon to cast a vote. Then the unimaginable happened, the moment so many representatives dread - they had to cast a contentious vote. They sponsored the bill believing that it would win them favor among some constituent groups while never really worrying about a backlash from opponents for a vote that would never come.
When it became clear that a vote would come, all of those opponents started reaching out to their delegates and voicing their concern. Many supporters and even co-sponsors simply were not ready for the pressure and they wavered, buckled, flip-flopped and altogether embarrassed themselves.
Especially frustrating has been the comments and justifications offered by many of these delegates. Del. Arora, after changing his mind about changing his mind stated that he would support the bill in committee and "On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls... I think that is appropriate." Arora was speaking to the expected petition for a referendum - Maryland, voters may challenge recently enacted legislation via a ballot initiative.
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who once supported having the legislature resolve this issue and indicated that he would sign whatever compromise legislation the legislature delivered to his desk, has been largely silent on this issue. O'Malley, as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, has been happy to engage in high profile battles with Republican governors like Chris Christie or Scott Walker over issues of union rights, public pensions, and health reform but has chosen to stand on the sidelines as his own state debates the preeminent civil rights issue of the day. When O'Malley did enter the fray his contribution was that he wished the House of Delegates would come together and compromise on a bill, that he would sign legislation legalizing gay marriage, but "We should let the people decide." Again referring to the expected ballot initiative.
After voting against the bill that she co-sponsored, Del. Alston said "I think people make the best decisions they can with the options that are available to them... I don't think anyone should hold any of our decisions against us, because this is a very difficult decision."
Arora, O'Malley, and Alston need to better understand that important distinction between direct democracy and representative republic. In Federalist 10 James Madison spoke of direct democracies as "spectacles of turbulence and contention." In a representative republic "the delegation of the government... to a small number of citizens elected by the rest..." These representatives, will "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."
Madison is telling us that in a representative republic we entrust our elected leaders to use their judgment when making decisions. It is not for them to place their fingers in the wind and vacillate with the ebb and flow of public opinion. It is for them to act based on their conception of what is best for community and country (or state).
None of this should be misconstrued as indicating that the voters have no say, of course they do. Madison wrote of this in Federalist 57, "Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it."
Here, Madison is telling us that those elected to lead are to exercise their judgment, to do what they think best, but to know that they will ultimately be held to account for their decisions via elections - that is when the people speak. Madison may have been writing about the US Congress specifically, but he was also writing of the concept of representation generally.
When O'Malley and Arora speak of letting the people decide, one wonders, what did the people of Maryland do on November 2, 2010 if not decide? The voters elected every member of the state Senate, every member of the House of Delegates, and Governor O'Malley. The obligation now falls on the elected to make the tough decisions and to exercise good judgment - not to rely on phone calls, public pressure, opinion polls or any other manner of non-binding expression of public sentiment. On November 4, 2014, Dels. Alston, Arora, Carter and every other member of the Assembly will face the voters' binding judgment - but before that day they have an obligation to act, to decide, to lead.
In Maryland, the right to referendum exists and the voters of the state are entitled to render their judgment on any particular piece of legislation, but before that can happen it falls upon our elected leaders to make a decision - no matter how hard and no matter the potential impact on their political career.
Too many of the problems in our states and in our nation can be linked to elected leaders making decisions based on the best interests of their reelection campaigns instead of the best interests of the community. We're certainly seeing that in Maryland as our state considers legalizing same sex marriage.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
For Maryland, a Chance to Lead on Same Sex Marriage
Update 2: The Baltimore Sun is reporting "Sen. Katherine Klausmeier said today that she has decided to vote in favor of same-sex marriage..." Sen. Joan Carter Conway, Baltimore Democrat has emerged as the crucial 24th vote.
Update: Democrat Sen. Edward Kasemeyer (Baltimore and Howard counties) is now a yes. According to the Washington Post "With Kasemeyer's support, 22 senators have now pledged to vote for the same-sex marriage bill, which needs 24 votes for passage. A 23rd senator, Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), has said she will vote for the bill if she believes it will pass."
Same-sex marriage proponents appeared poised to score a significant victory in Maryland as the state Senate inches closer to approving a bill, SB 116, that would redefine marriage as being between two individuals as opposed to being between one man and one woman. The bill needs 24 votes in the state Senate and presently enjoys 22 committed supporters and 5 Senators who are considering supporting the measure.
Update: Democrat Sen. Edward Kasemeyer (Baltimore and Howard counties) is now a yes. According to the Washington Post "With Kasemeyer's support, 22 senators have now pledged to vote for the same-sex marriage bill, which needs 24 votes for passage. A 23rd senator, Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), has said she will vote for the bill if she believes it will pass."
The federal government and most states are well behind the curve on this issue - Maryland has a chance to lead on protecting this "basic civil right.".
Sen. Joan Carter Conway, Baltimore Democrat
Sen. Ulysses Currie, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. James Rosapepe, Prince George's County Democrat
For
Sen. Bill Ferguson, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Jennie Forehand, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Brian Frosh, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Rob Garagiola, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Lisa Gladden, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Edward Kasemeyer, Baltimore and Howard counties Democrat
Sen. Delores Kelley, Baltimore County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Nancy King, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, Howard County Republican
Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. Richard Madaleno, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Roger Manno, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Nathaniel McFadden, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Karen Montgomery, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Paul Pinsky, Prince George's County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Catherine E. Pugh, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Victor Ramirez, Prince George's County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Jamie Raskin, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. James Robey, Howard County Democrat
Sen. Ronald Young, Frederick County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Bobby Zirkin, Baltimore County Democrat (sponsor)
Against
Sen. Joanne Benson, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. David Brinkley, Carroll and Frederick counties Republican
Sen. Richard Colburn, Eastern Shore Republican
Sen. James DeGrange, Anne Arundel County Democrat
Sen. Roy Dyson, Southern Maryland Democrat
Sen. George Edwards, Western Maryland Republican
Sen. Joseph Getty, Baltimore and Carroll counties Republican
Sen. Barry Glassman, Harford County Republican
Sen. Nancy Jacobs, Harford and Cecil counties Republican
Sen. J.B. Jennings, Baltimore and Harford counties Republican
Sen. James Mathias, Eastern Shore Democrat
Sen. Thomas Middleton, Charles County Democrat
Sen. Thomas V. Mike Miller, Prince George's and Calvert counties Democrat
Sen. C. Anthony Muse, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. Douglas J.J. Peters, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. E.J. Pipkin, Eastern Shore Republican
Sen. Edward Reilly, Anne Arundel County Republican
Sen. Christopher Shank, Washington County Republican
Sen. Bryan Simonaire, Anne Arundel County Republican
Sen. Norman Stone, Baltimore County Democrat
same sex marriage via legislation. In Iowa and Massachusetts state courts ordered the legalization of same sex marriage.
It's an historical coincidence that by 1940, 31 out of 48 states had banned interracial marriage in some form. Gradually, as attitudes began to change 15 of the states overturned their laws - including Maryland, but Maryland waited until 1967, the same year that the Supreme Court would eventually declare bans on interracial marriage.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Same Sex Marriage and "Judicial Activism"
On Wednesday, August 4 a federal judge voided California's ban on same sex marriage (proposition 8) declaring that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The issues tends to be a bit divisive and as one can imagine the reaction to the ruling has varied - but there is one narrative that I find especially troubling. On supported of Proposition 8 said this: "The whole nation is watching, and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters."
This is a variation on a similar theme often raised after controversial judicial rulings - that judges should not act counter to the will of the voters or their elected representatives. I will defer to the judgement of Alexander Hamilton on such matters. In Federalist 78, Hamilton addressed this very subject:
So who should determine what the Constitution means? The people? Their representatives? Again, Hamilton provides the answer:
Soon, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to consider whether the individual mandate included as part of comprehensive health reform violates the Constitution. The decision by the court to void the mandate would be significant as the health reform law did not include a severability clause - meaning that a decision to invalidate the mandate would likely invalidate the entire bill.
I will not presuppose what the court will decide - but I remain confident that the judges will do just what the are supposed to do - interpret the Constitution and uphold its will above all else.
This is a variation on a similar theme often raised after controversial judicial rulings - that judges should not act counter to the will of the voters or their elected representatives. I will defer to the judgement of Alexander Hamilton on such matters. In Federalist 78, Hamilton addressed this very subject:
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.Hamilton's point is clear - no act of law, whether approved by voters or representatives may violate the Constitution.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
So who should determine what the Constitution means? The people? Their representatives? Again, Hamilton provides the answer:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.Interpretation of the law and of the Constitution is the sole responsibility of the judiciary and if a law is found to violate the Constitution it does not matter if it was approved by 7 or 7 million voters - it is void. The same applies to any legislation enacted by the House and Senate and signed by a president.
Soon, the Supreme Court will likely be asked to consider whether the individual mandate included as part of comprehensive health reform violates the Constitution. The decision by the court to void the mandate would be significant as the health reform law did not include a severability clause - meaning that a decision to invalidate the mandate would likely invalidate the entire bill.
I will not presuppose what the court will decide - but I remain confident that the judges will do just what the are supposed to do - interpret the Constitution and uphold its will above all else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)