More News

ANNAPOLIS — As a civil right that offers economic and health benefits, marriage should be extended to same-sex couples, advocates argued this week before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which heard testimony on competing marriage bills.

"We are still at the mercy of health care providers when we face a family emergency, we are at the mercy of tax collectors when we have an unexpected occurrence," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington, the only openly gay member of the Senate, where he is the lead sponsor of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act.

The bill extends civil marriage to same-sex couples, meaning they could be granted marriage licenses by the state. It also seeks to strike a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage by explicitly stating that religious institutions will not be required to marry same-sex couples.

Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, said he has seen the argument of advocates change.

"They admitted publicly they're not interested in civil union; they're only interested in the term ‘marriage,'" said Dwyer (R-Dist. 31) of Glen Burnie. "That changes the game entirely."

Dwyer is the lead sponsor of a House bill proposing a 2010 ballot referendum for voters to decide whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Neither Madaleno's nor Dwyer's bill is expected to pass this year, as the General Assembly is wrestling with a huge budget deficit, and the Senate already has taken up the emotionally charged issue of the death penalty.

In past years, same-sex marriage advocates have said the issue involves benefits and rights, not marriage, Dwyer said.

Benefits and rights are at the heart of the issue, advocates said.

Michael Lacey of Rockville knows the impact of an "unexpected occurrence." Ira Kaye, his partner of 23 years, died in a freak accident in August when he became pinned between two cars in the garage of the home the couple shared.

Since then, as he has struggled to pay the inheritance tax on the home the two jointly owned, Lacey said, he has heard people say, "If only you were married."

Instead, the taxes he would not have to pay if he and Kaye had the right to marry are cutting into financial support for the couple's 11-year-old son. The money would be going to the boy's college fund, Lacey said at a news conference organized by Equality Maryland.

Marriage provides significant health benefits, said Dr. Peter Bielenson, Howard County's health officer.

Married people have fewer doctor visits, fewer instances of depression and substance abuse and fewer nursing home admissions, he said.

"Children of married parents do much better than children of unmarried cohabitating parents," Bielenson said.

One reason is 20 percent of unmarried couples are uninsured versus 10 percent of married couples, he said.

Thursday's hearing on the bills in the House Judiciary Committee were to include testimony in favor of same-sex marriage from former Republican Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D), the first statewide elected official to publicly support marriage equality, and Travis Britt, widower of the late Sen. Gwendolyn T. Britt, who was to be a lead sponsor of the bill in 2008.

Should the legislature vote to allow same-sex marriage, Dwyer said he will lead the push for a statewide referendum to strike it down.

Marriage advocates are unlikely to take the referendum route.

"I don't think we have any plans to pursue a constitutional amendment to allow for marriage equality, when the courts have already said we can statutorily do it," Madaleno said.

"You do not ask for a referendum on your rights," said Elbridge James, director of the Maryland Black Family Alliance. "You do not ask the uninformed majority to say, ‘Let me ignore the plight of a deserving minority.' This is not asking whether you like chocolate, or vanilla or strawberry ice cream. We're asking for a human civil right to be acknowledged."