patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Gay Marriage Supporters Have Hearts Set on Maryland Passage

As the general assembly nears a vote on the Civil Marriage Protection Act, local residents weigh its impact.

Twenty-one years is a long time to wait for a wedding.

For Sabrina Meyers and her partner Estina, a lesbian couple living in University Park, the wait could be over in just a few short weeks if the Maryland General Assembly passes the Civil Marriage Protection Act.

Not that all Meyers and Estina have been doing these last two decades is waiting. They've changed jobs, bought and moved into a new home, given birth to and raised a daughter, adopted a dog, and built a supportive community of friends and neighbors. They have been living their lives—two moms, one daughter—in their home in University Park.

When Sabrina and Estina first got together, they didn’t even want to get married. As the years have passed, that’s changed.

“For the longest time, we thought it was just a piece of paper, but as we get older, we think it means more than that,” Meyers said.

Their 7-year-old daughter, Emily, is ready for her moms to get married. With their 21st anniversary coming up just after Valentine’s Day, this might be the year—legislation permitting.

They’ve discussed marrying in a state where same-sex marriage is already recognized but ultimately decided not to go that route.

“It just feels right to do it in our own state,” Meyers said.

The couple have given each other medical power of attorney, but if Estina were to become ill or be in an accident, Meyers would have to show up at the hospital with a piece of paper to prove she was legally allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner. Married couples do not need this additional protection.

When Estina gave birth to their daughter Emily seven years ago, Meyers had to apply for adoption to become a legal parent. Were they married, Sabrina would have not have been required to adopt her daughter. Emily would have been her legal daughter at birth.

According to Heather Mizeur, an openly gay delegate from Montgomery County, there are about 423 other rights that Meyers and Estina would be entitled to as a married couple in Maryland.

The College Park City Council voted 7-1 last month in support of the bill. Still, some local residents worry about the social impact of the Civil Marriage Protection Act.

College Park resident and former president of the North College Park Citizens Association Larry Bleau says he’s all for giving people rights, but he does not support redefining “marriage” to make that happen.

“This is cultural change being forced through this mechanism,” Bleau said of the proposed legislation.

“Who has done a study on how this would impact society?” he asked.

Bleau said he objects to the lack of a “conscience clause” in the legislation to protect those with religious objections to gay marriage, such as teachers who do not want to address the issue in the classroom, court clerks who do not feel comfortable issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples or religious institutions who do not want to rent their recreation halls out for gay marriage celebrations. These people could lose their jobs or be subjected to lawsuits, he worries.

“I see this as ultimately impinging on religious freedom,” Bleau said.

That argument held little sway during last week's Prince Georgians for Marriage Equality event in Hyattsville. Mizeur and Delegate Justin Ross (D-Dist. 22) were among those who spoke to a crowd of more than 200 supporters at Busboys & Poets.

Ross was not always support gay marriage. Early in his career, he supported civil unions, but not full marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Over the years, as Ross met more and more gay and lesbian families, he came to believe that they deserved the same protections and benefits that he and his wife, Nancy, enjoy.

“This is about supporting the rights of all Prince George’s County citizens, every single one,” he said.

Ross encouraged his neighbors and constituents to take action by lobbying the legislature, calling their local representatives and participating in phone banks.

“If we don’t do what we are supposed to do, think how we will feel if we come up one vote short,” he said. “And if we do lose, that’s what it will be—by one vote.”

Just last week, a federal appeals court in California ruled their same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional and two days ago, Washington state became the seventh state in America to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

If the General Assembly passes the necessary legislation over the next few weeks, Maryland will be the eighth, with other states considering similar gay marriage legislation this year.

“The tide is not turning,” Mizeur said. “The tide has turned.”

Related Topics: Civil Marriage Protection Act, Gay Marriage, State Legislation, and local families

mimsi

4:23 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012

I attended the Prince Georgians for Marriage Equality event last week and was so proud of what I saw. I hope that Sabrina and Estina and their beautiful daughter get their wish, and that all Marylanders are granted equal rights.

Reply

Nancy Lineman

4:44 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012

I have not heard one single legal argument as to why marriage equality should not become a reality in Maryland.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Barry

8:25 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012

I guess I do not fully understand the issue. Does calling 2 people "married" give them more rights or something? Is it just the phrase of being called "married" the point? If that is the case then yes, I'm 100% behind calling any 2 people married.

Lori

11:33 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Barry - yes, there are many rights that married people automatically get that civil unions do not provide. There are others that same-sex couples can try to approximate by using legal documents, but they are not the same and they are expensive.

For instance, my partner of 28 years died of breast cancer. Even though we had living wills, medical power of attorney, legal documents ad nauseum (that we paid a lot of money for), the funeral home STILL denied me the right to make her funeral arrangements, stating that I was not legally next of kin because we were not married. The power of attorney, living wills, all of the legal documents were no longer valid because she was dead. I was informed of this on the phone while she was still in my house and I was waiting for the funeral home to pick her up.

Fortunately, her father and brother were very supportive. But it was emotionally draining to have the funeral director ask them every single question about planning the funeral. They would literally immediately turn and ask me what I wanted to do. That is, of course, until it came time to pay. He was more than happy to take my money.

The point is that there is no such thing as separate but equal in this case. It must be marriage, or it is not the same thing. Trust me.

Reply

Beth

7:22 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012

Great article. Lori, sorry for your loss and the trouble from the funeral home that must have been so stressful.

Because the government has tied marriage, not civil unions, to legal issues only marriage will work. The words "civil union" do not appear in government regulations, only the word married/marriage. If you're married you have visitation rights, you can file jointly on state income tax, you are granted medicial directive, etc, it doesn't say married and unioned. The government only identifies these rights for those who are married.

And of course, if this passes it will only cover state legal matters. It does not address federal government rights such as social secruity beneifts, surviover benifits, federal employees health insurance, etc. That's why we need the president and congress to over turn DOMA (defense of marriage act).

Reply

Marty

7:36 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012

I attended the event, and am grateful to Justin for supporting this effort. Although I am not gay, I believe support the civil marriage bill. Someone once told me that she opposed gay marriage because she didn't want her children to grow up believing it was an approved way of life. I support gay marriage because I want my children and grandchildren to grow up believing that everyone has the right to marry the person they love. This bill is about rights and about making a commitment.

Reply

Barry

8:21 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012

Ok it was my understanding that civil unions provided the same "rights" as someone who is married. If this is not the case what if the gov makes civil unions the same. Would that solve the issue or would there still be a push to be called "married"

Also I assume that all people fighting for gay marriage should also have no problem with poligamy.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Marty

11:48 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012

Whatever floats your boat, Barry. ;>)

Comment_arrow

buckeye

1:15 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012

Sorry, I don't understand. What does this issue have to do with polygamy?

Comment_arrow

Katie Zafft

1:46 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012

I think I'm with "buckeye" on that one. What in the world doe polygamy have to do with marriage rights between TWO people? You know, the slippery slope argument is sooooo swiss-cheezy. It was used pre-1967 to argue that blacks and whites shouldn't get married. And now 1 in 12 marriages are interracial (according to a recent NPR article).

Comment_arrow

Barry

9:08 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012

I only brought up the poligamy argument because I thought that if gay people are fighting for the rights of any people to get married they should also stand up for people who are interested in marrying more then one person. To be against it would be hypocritical.

Comment_arrow

LH

11:59 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Nice attempt at trolling, Barry.

Comment_arrow

Barry

7:56 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Was not trollinh LH although maybe I did not include enough detail in my post to make you think that. I'm just saying that if the fight is all about equal rights for people who want to get married I hope they all support the poligamist point of view. The gays (and everyone else supporting the gays) should say - yes, anyone who wants to get married should be allowed to. We should not have gov get involved in that. To say anything otherwise is hypocritical.

Not asking you to agree with me, but just food for thought.

Rick Hudson

12:08 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012

Although there is nothing requiring religous institutions to perform the marriages in the legislation, I would feel better about it if there was a conscience clause relieving legally established and recognized religous institutions of any potential discrimination accusations/lawsuits down the road.

I suspect there are many people who disagree with same sex marriage from a theological standpoint, but civilly or politically have no opposition to it.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Patrick Wojahn

11:28 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012

Rick - the bill includes extensive provisions that relieve religious institutions from any obligation to conduct any type of ceremony or in any way recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex if the religious institution does not wish to do so. You can read the provisions here: http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/sb/sb0241f.pdf. The bill also specifically states that a refusal to conduct a marriage ceremony or recognize a marriage by any religious institution or individual on religious grounds should not subject that institution or individual to legal action. Those provisions were worked out after a lot of discussion with religious organizations about how to protect their rights, and some religious figures who have been opposed to granting marriage rights to same-sex couples on religious grounds have supported this legislation because it allows for CIVIL marriage and doesn't require religious recognition of marriage between people of the same sex.

Leave a comment