From Baltimore OutLoud

Editorial (Gay Marriage)

By Mike Chase

Since the November elections, there has been a lot of speculation over the impact the gay marriage issue had in the defeat of John Kerry and other Democratic candidates. Even though Kerry publicly opposed same-sex marriage, the issue energized enough conservatives to give President Bush another four years. Bush and his top strategist Karl Rove certainly believed it was a wedge issue that would, and did, turn out the religious right in large numbers. During the campaign Bush embraced a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. And Republicans used the issue repeatedly in fundraising and to pump-up voter turnout.

Gay marriage has replaced abortion at the top of the religious right’s agenda. Constitutional amendments in 11 states banning gay marriage were approved by overwhelming majorities in all 11 states.

And, while the issue of same-sex marriage may remain a priority of national and state lgbt leaders, it has proven to be an unwinable fight with voters and lawmakers. It is only in the courts where we have had some limited success (i.e. Massachusetts, Hawaii.) But it is those very judicial victories which has whipped the religious right into a frenzy.

Now we are facing a similar situation in Maryland. Last year a number of lesbian and gay couples filed suit against the state seeking the right to marry. That lawsuit is supported by both the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland. It is opposed by nearly every right-wing religious nutcase in the state and it has mobilized a dedicated group of antigay lawmakers and citizens to coordinate an effort to stop same-sex marriage at the legislative level, perhaps with an amendment to the state constitution.

So what should we do? Take our chances in court with the ACLU lawsuit and fight a defensive battle in the legislature, hoping to stop the anti-gay legislation that is sure to be introduced. Or, do we go on the offensive, so to speak, and seek a comprehensive “civil unions” measure similar to that enacted by lawmakers in Vermont.

We believe the latter offers the best chance of eventual success. It embraces both the needs of lesbian and gay couples without threatening the moral certainty of the Christian right. A “civil unions” bill might be a compromise attractive to lawmakers who don’t want to see Maryland become embroiled in a constitutional battle like the one being played out in Massachusetts. Why not take a working model like the one in Vermont (it has been on the books for five years now) and adopt it in the Free State.

Given the choice between banning gay marriages altogether or establishing a system which respects the rights of lesbian and gay couples, Maryland lawmakers will support civil unions, and depending on his mood that day, the Governor might even sign it. After all, during the closing days of his campaign, even President Bush offered some support for civil unions.

Maryland is going to be watched closely by the national media this year and state lawmakers want to avoid a nasty fight over this issue. That and the uncertainty of the pending lawsuit may be enough to make civil unions an acceptable compromise.

Let’s put it on the table. We believe Marylanders will embrace civil unions rather than adopt a discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage. By doing what is in Maryland’s best interest, we can not only win the equality civil unions provide, but also establish a strategy other states can follow.

It may sound defeatist to give up on same-sex marriages, but it seems success is far more likely if we seek civil union legislation. And the question we have to ask ourselves: What do we want more: a prolonged fight over semantics or the equality provided by civil unions?

Click here to read Equality Maryland Executive Director Dan Furmansky's response.