Maryland legislators push stronger gay 'marriage' ban

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

ANNAPOLIS -- The Democratic lawmaker sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex "marriages" in other states said yesterday he thinks it will pass this year because "the wolf is at the door."

Maryland family law recognizes marriages only between a man and a woman, but Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. said his bill -- which has died in two previous sessions -- would make it more difficult for Maryland courts to follow Massachusetts' lead and bypass legal barriers to homosexual "marriage."

"Maryland law doesn't go far enough," said Mr. Burns, Baltimore Democrat and House deputy majority whip. "I want to close that door."

Mr. Burns' bill and one by Delegate Charles R. Boutin calling for a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual "marriage" face tight votes in the House Judiciary Committee, and the full House will likely be narrowly divided on the issue.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.,Republican, has not staked out a position on either bill, but as a U.S. congressman he voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that mirrors the Burns bill.

"The governor believes that the institution of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman," said Ehrlich spokesman Henry P. Fawell. "But until this legislation goes through the legislative process and reaches his desk, it would be premature to take a position."

If the Boutin bill passes, the constitutional amendment would be decided as a referendum on the November 2006 ballot.

"Place in the hands of the voters of this state the decision of what will be the definition of marriage," said Mr. Boutin, Anne Arundel County Republican. "I don't want some court somewhere to decide this issue."

Maryland lawmakers reviewed both bills yesterday, a day after President Bush urged Congress to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. Thousands of same-sex "marriages" in San Francisco this month and a Massachusetts court ruling that such "marriages" must be permitted under the state's constitution prompted the action.