Will Maryland Lead on Marriage Equality?

In a very emotional hearing last week folks testified in favor of and against marriage equality in Maryland.  Last year, after passing in the Senate, marriage equality legislation lacked the the 71 votes needed to pass in the House of Delegates. Since that time, much has happened. Marriage equality was legalized in New York, Washington state just legalized it as well, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that proposition 8 in California - which took away the right to same-sex marriage - was unconstitutional. 

The march of history is clear. Marriage equality will come to every state, it's only a matter of time. Public opinion has shifted considerably in recent years and the trend is clearly in favor of same sex marriage.  In 7 states, plus DC, same sex marriage is now legal. Voters in Minnesota, New Jersey, and North Carolina will soon consider the issue.  Maryland still has a chance to lead on this issue, to set an example for other states.

I reiterate something I wrote last year on the day same-sex marriage died in the House of Delegates:

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?

Just over 45 years ago the Democratic party was divided over the issue of civil rights and the question of black equality. Democrats dominated national politics and party leaders and even presidents had tried to ignore the issue of civil rights out fear it would tear the Democratic coalition apart. In the end, President Johnson and committed activists in the House and Senate pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And guess what? It shattered the Democratic party coalition. The party lost its national dominance. It lost the White House in 1968, 72, 80, 84, 88, 2000 and 2004. It lost its hold on Congress.

But would anyone argue today that it was the wrong choice to make? African-American voter registration skyrocketed in the South. African-American representation in Congress and state and local office grew considerably. It was simply the right choice to make.

Democrats in Maryland are faced with a similar test of their character. Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage will likely fracture your coalition and perhaps challenge your dominance of state politics. But it's still the right thing, the only acceptable thing, to do. I have been a frequent critic of Martin O'Malley, but his decision to champion this issue, even if it means dividing his party, is to be commended. I only hope that Democrats in the General Assembly will follow his example and lead on this issue.

I hasten to add, in 1964 a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans was crucial to securing passage of the Civil Rights Act over the objection of conservative southern Democrats - but it was the Democratic party that paid the price politically and Republicans that claimed the subsequent allegiance of angry southern whites. Governor O'Malley has recently made overtures to Republicans in the House of Delegates seeking the support of a few party moderates. It would be great if Republican votes helped ensure final passage - but one must ask, why would Republicans consider helping a Governor who has made a habit of referring to them as right-wing, dinosaur, tea party extremists? O'Malley may soon learn that there is a price to be paid for harsh rhetoric. It may help his party raise money and it may raise his national profile, but it undermines coalition building and legislating.

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.

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.)

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:

"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...

Same-Sex Marriage Intrigue in Maryland

Update 2: Separate but Equal in Maryland, Roger Taney Would be so Proud


Update: A vote is now expected tomorrow. Del. Carter has indicated that she will vote in favor of the bill. Del. Alston has not stated how she intends to vote.

Legislation legalizing same-sex civil marriage in Maryland passed by a relatively comfortable 25-21 margin in the state Senate last week. Most analysts considered the Senate to be the tougher challenge and assumed that passage would be rather easy to secure in the Maryland House of Delegates... apparently not. As the House Judiciary Committee was preparing to vote to send the bill to the floor 2 members of the committee staged a walk-out and ended consideration of the bill. Dels. Jill Carter of Baltimore and Tiffany Alston of Prince Georges County decided that they weren't prepared to vote for the legislation - an incredibly interesting and mindboggling decision given that both are co-sponsor of the bill.

Del. Carter later indicated that she was withholding support because she feels that the Assembly should be focused on more important issue such as education or child custody... one may reasonably ask then, why she chose to sponsor a bill that she deemed to be of lesser importance. Alston told press outlets that she was reconsidering her position, but later issued a statement in which she wrote "As a law maker it is my duty and privilege to serve the people and try to find balance and equity where inequity exits. This duty is compounded when your personal religious beliefs are contrary to what you believe to be fundamentally right for society.... Accordingly, I have resolved that if and when the chairman calls the vote I will be ready to vote based on what I believe is right..”

Many interpret Alston's statement to be an indication that she will support the bill. In another development, Del. Melvin Stukes of Baltimore withdrew his sponsorship of the bill explaining that he thought the bill only provided for civil unions and not for civil marriage. In the spirit of full disclosure, I know Del. Stukes and have the utmost respect for him, but the text of the bill has always been clear with regard to legalizing civil marriage.

So what's happening in the Maryland House? Why are co-sponsors of the bill flaking out? The most likely explanation is that they sponsored the legislation based on the assumption that it would never pass in the Senate and they would never be called upon to cast a vote in favor of it. Now, there is a very real possibility that the bill will become law and these lawmakers were not prepared for the pressure of actually casting a vote.

It is likely more than a coincidence that the three delegates referenced are African American and represent predominantly African-American constituencies. As reported by the Washington Post, African-American churches and religious leaders have emerged as a strong voice of opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage (as have Catholic churches and leaders). No doubt Dels. Stukes, Carter, and Alston have been hearing much of that opposition.

If they happen to be reading this blog post I would ask that they consider the words of Rep. John Lewis, one of America's greatest heroes of the Civil Rights movement.

Writing in 2003 Lewis 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.”

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 less arbitrary?

One need not equate the struggle against generations of pain, suffering, and discrimination suffered by African Americans with the contemporary civil rights struggles of gay and lesbian Americans - but one should certainly equate the basic concept of fairness and equality under the law. 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 Dels. Stukes, Carter, Alston, and every other delegate - will you support this fundamental civil right or not?