What they have not been talking about is the fact that civil marriage equality is “truly a conservative goal.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_mdpolitics_062706.htm

According to question 36, as of June 25, 50% of all registered Maryland voters said they would favor “a state law that would allow gay or lesbian couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples.” 47 percent would oppose. Not exactly staggering figures, and not exactly the most precise wording, but it strongly suggests (to me) that a majority would support at least the modest measures involved in these two bills. I think it would be a stretch to claim that the bills were trying to subvert the will of the voters.

—————-

Now, I have another very important point to make. On 1/7/04, according to this poll, the split was 44% in favor, 51% opposed to civil unions, so support for civil unions has increased by 6%, and opposition decreased by 4%, since then.

What has happened in Maryland in the intervening years? On 7/7/04, a same-sex marriage lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and Equality Maryland. Arguments were heard on 8/30/05. Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled in favor of same-sex marriage on 1/20/06.

This would seem to contradict the claim that the push for full marriage equality has alienated citizens and harmed efforts to achieve goals short of same-sex marriage. At least in Maryland.

Here’s the entire text of Maryland Family Law, Section 2-201, the only relevant statute in Maryland law as far as I can tell:

“Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.”

It doesn’t say anything at all about registries of domestic partners or life partners. It does not state or imply that any recognition of same-sex couples other than marriage would be illegal. For Ehrlich to claim otherwise would be an affront to my intelligence, but I really don’t think he meant to make that claim. It was a policy veto.

Of course, since it isn’t written to pander precisely to gays, in the mind of gay activists and, apparently, people like yourself, it’s antigay.

No, the advance directives bill that was passed wasn’t antigay. Ehrlich’s vetoes were, in some sense, antigay. Maybe not in the sense of “bigoted” or “hateful,” but in the sense that he plainly doesn’t recognize same-sex relationships as being as legitimate as “traditional marriage.” And he opposes even modest legal recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, which would in fact be perfectly consistent with Maryland law. (And which, I wager, would be perfectly acceptable to a majority of Marylanders, though I don’t have statistics to back this up off-hand.)

You know, your tone seems vaguely hostile, and I have no idea why; I have been trying to explain myself in a calm and reasonable fashion. One other thing, I don’t mind you calling me a gay activist, because I clearly am one; just don’t call me a liberal.

Governor Ehrlich outlined why it is objectionable:

While I am a long-time proponent of lowering settlement costs for Maryland citizens, House Bill 1298 codifies in State statute a new relationship of domestic partners, which I believe undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage as codified by State law.

The same problem exists in California. Gay leftists and pandering Democrats are attempting to override the voter-enacted Proposition 22, which very clearly bans gay marriage in California, by using the inane argument that it doesn’t apply to marriages made in-state and attempting to thus back-door the process.

I say that the laws are clear. Run a campaign to repeal Prop 22 (or in the case of MD, repeal the state DOMA), and then you have free rein to put in whatever you want. Anything else is an affront to voters’ intelligence and, in my opinion, the reason that voters so often put into place bans to prevent gays from using such manipulations.

Then, as far as SB 796 goes, Ehrlich has no problem with granting the right, only the method by which that right is granted. He made that obvious when he proposed his own rule this year that would grant that right to any couple without having to designate them as “life partners”, thus making the right more accessible to a wide range of people.

In short, he took the libertarian view — instead of limiting the right to just “life partnerships”, gay or straight, he preferred that it be applied to all different types of couples in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Of course, since it isn’t written to pander precisely to gays, in the mind of gay activists and, apparently, people like yourself, it’s antigay.

I know this wasn’t directed at me, but since they’re repelling me, too, I thought I would respond.

Voters are repelling us because they don’t think same-sex relationships are as fully legitimate — and equivalent in all essentials — to straight ones. At best, that’s a product of their ignorance, which I admit may not be entirely their fault.

I have read the Recordation and Transfer Tax bill (HB 1298). The only thing objectionable about it is that it was a very modest proposal that would have created a separate legal status that was not marriage — but I can’t see that being a reason that you’d find it objectionable.

Gov. Ehrlich’s veto statement is very telling. Here, as Andrew Sullivan might say, is the money quote:

“While I am a long-time proponent of lowering settlement costs for Maryland citizens, House Bill 1298 codifies in State statute a new relationship of domestic partners, which I believe undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage as codified by State law.”

I didn’t read all of the Medical Decision Making bill (SB 796) in detail. As far as I can tell, though, it would have simply allowed someone to designate a life partner as direct next-of-kin for the purpose of making medical decisions. Gov. Ehrlich’s veto statement invoked the same argument he used with the other bill:

“While Senate Bill 796 has the noble goals of ensuring that couples have access to important health-related decisions – compassionate goals that I embrace – the mechanism it uses, the creation a new term of life partner, will open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage.”

The man is not just against marriage equality. He thinks that any kind of legal recognition of the legimacy of a same-sex couple is going to somehow harm “the sanctity of marriage.” Same old same old.

HB 1298 text: http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/hb/hb1298t.pdf

HB 1298 veto statement: http://www.gov.state.md.us/billvetoes/2005/message_HB1298.html

SB 796 text: http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/sb/sb0796e.pdf

SB 796 veto statement: http://www.gov.state.md.us/billvetoes/2005/message_SB796.html

I’ll give you a hint, Raj; I’ve added emphasis to show you.

Furthermore, thank you for undermining your own argument:

I know that you are substantive-impaired, but, given the facts that Maryland already recognizes living wills and medical powers-of-attorney, just how is this proposal an advance for gay people?

Of course, the reasons that leftists like you argue that gays need marriage is because, allegedly, they can’t make living wills or grant medical powers-of-attorney.

You see, admitting the fact that they do undermines your argument about “need” and exposes your drive for marriage at its antireligious, hate-filled, jihadist roots. And this is why voters keep repelling you — they know you’re using lies to cover up your real motives.

Also, Robert Ehrlich vetoed two modest measures last year that would have brought some fairness for gay couples in Maryland (see http://www.equalitymaryland.org/PR_2005/PR2005.05.20.htm). One of them would have eliminated the transfer and recordation tax for couples who can’t legally marry.

What’s a Republican who vetoes a tax cut good for? (Supply your own witty answer. I have one in mind, but I’m afraid that it wouldn’t be taken as a joke by those who may be watching this page.)

Well, thank you (and raj) for your support in going against the grain at times.

I suppose you might well lean more left, in economic concerns, but a glance at your blog suggests that your main focus is on things with which I fully agree. (I am, even as we speak, trying to get a job in development with the ACLU of Maryland. )

I know that you are substantive-impaired, but, given the facts that Maryland already recognizes living wills and medical powers-of-attorney, just how is this proposal an advance for gay people?

Don’t BS me. Tell me just how this is an advance for gay people? How is this a change in substantive law. Other than maybe providing for a state registry–big deal.

Then what exactly do you do on election day, kdogg36? Throw your vote away on third party candidates? Or just stay home?

Some of us vote for the Libertarian party largely so that the Libertarian Party might not have to go through the process of gathering petition signatures to get their candidates on the next ballot. As is typical in most states, if the Libertarian Party gets enough votes in one election, they don’t have to go through the petition route for the next election.

Of course, since we are from Massachusetts, the outcome of the election is pretty much fore-ordained as between the major parties. But I’m amused at the number of self-described libertarians who vote Republican–who are decidedly not libertarian–instead of Libertarian, who are.

This year, we’ll be voting for the Democratic party candidate for governor (even if we have to hold our noses and vote for the despicable Reilly), if only for the reason to defeat the Republican know-nothing cypher Kerry Heally, currently Mitt “the snitt” Romney’s lieutenant governess.

>>>>Well, in some states (like my own, Maryland), there’s virtually no chance of getting “something else” through the legislative process

Not quite.

Oh, wow. A proposal by the MD governor to establish a state registry of something that amounts to a living will, with an indication of who is to be designated “power of attorney” to give voice to medical care decisions if the person is not able to do so him- or herself. Big deal. Unless MD state is truly backward–which may be the case–individuals can already enter into a living will and give the “power of attorney.”

Big advance? No. The only possible advance is the central registry with the state. The cited article doesn’t give any indication what force it might have if a “family” member tries to intervene. Nor does it give any indication what force it might have in other states if an event occurs in other states. In other words, it’s a Bandaid that doesn’t provide any protection. Smoke & mirrors. Sophistry. To let the soccer moms believe that the Republicans are actually doing something to ameliorate discrimination against gay people.

“Way too long…couldn’t read all of it.”

And the trolls of raj/ian, Gramps, CowBoyBob, QueerP and Mr Moderate get another member. “Rally now, freedom to post for all –even if it doesn’t make sense!”

I am not gay, so I can’t answer your other questions.

And I think this is half the problem. If you want to forward a specific agenda, you can’t play the political party game-you need to look for, and support only those candidates that are actually dedicated to furthering the goal of that agenda.

Supporting a democrat that is opposed to gay marriage isn’t going to get you any further than opposing republicans on principal.

Look to the pro life movement-you won’t find pro life groups endorsing pro choice candidates-you won’t find them providing monetary support for them either-gay groups haven’t quite figured this one out yet, and they need to.

Poor Matty, unable to address the issue that I raised in # 12, so he tries to deflect it with another “raj” “Ian” rant.

Kdogg36, you have equality under the law. You can marry a woman, same as I can or any other man can. We are also free to choose not to marry women. You shouldn’t believe “Republicans will bring us a good result” on this issue any more than Democrats will. Gay marriage just ain’t happening, through either Republicans or Democrats.

(1) Will you be truly satisfied with measures (domestic partnerships, reciprical benefits, etc.) that fall short of equality under the law?

(2) If not, what is your plan to achieve true equality under the law?

(3) Why should I, or any other gay person, believe that the Republicans will bring us a good result?

(4) Is it possible that you’re just too comfortable with your own life to risk anything in the pursuit of real change?

(And don’t talk about how bad Democrats are. Yes, they’re very bad. You need to show why some other alternative is GOOD.)