Democrats, stop. This is the sort of thing that everyone should be able to support. Show you can represent your constituents and get behind Kittleman's bill

Hooray for Sen. Kittleman! Let's create a special legal category for gays and call it equal! & then let's ask those people who can't get a fully-sustained relationship to be happy for their 2nd class status. Hooray! Hooray!

"distinguishing marriage as a separate religious union"??? What happened to separation of church and state for marriages performed at the courthouse? Yet another discriminatory, fear-based opinion. Gays and lesbians marrying will do NO HARM to anyone else's marriage nor to the institution of marriage...

"Kittleman's proposal would give same-sex couples the full menu of legal rights available to traditional married couples, while distinguishing marriage as a separate religious union."

Ahhh, the right resorts to "separate, but equal" once again. And how many times have we seen wingnuts call for "lynching" offenders on this very website.

They'll never be happy. Give them the same rights as straight people, and they still can't be satisfied. Sad. Very sad.

As a supporter of the full civil rights that a civil union law will afford and as an agnostic who would prefer to sidestep entirely the semantic abyss of the word "marriage"...

I'm seeing this group like petulant children who insist on having the whole pie rather than to share any. Well, f they continue to in this "all or nothing" approach then I say treat them like those petulant children and give them NOTHING.

While we believe that Sen. Kittleman has made a good faith gesture to seek legal parity for gay and straight citizen, we also know that other states that have tried to find a substitute for civil marriage have found that these interim efforts always fall short. There is no legal substitute for civil marriage. We welcome the help of all who seek to repair the unequal legal standing of lgbt citizens, but we can accept no substitutes.

RE: 01-06-2010 Same-Sex Marriages is Trench Fight not a War
What was the original intent of marriages, state and church? Religious establishments will not bless “same-sex marriage” nor bless governments to do the same for a minority opinion except in rights for rights, i.e., in employment, medical representations, etc. There is too much power of church and state at risk. Anyone of knowledge knows that that requires the blessing of the business community, not even the voter. If you mess with the economy at this level, you undermine economic factors which status quo groups will not come forward to be distracted from market management results which might lessen their efficiencies.
The majority of a community has as much right to declare and hold that "B" is not/equal to "A". The initial issue was rights for persons who of the same sex were denied death, employer benefit and other rights. Marriage is a uniquely state-church state of recognition which is accepted by all as a special productive union (of value to the greater community). What will be the [taxable, etc.] value of same sex unions being [upgraded to] marriage status for the community?
And finally, choices which are politically tolerable, not tolerable or even unpopular by majority, are not necessarily
a governor's choice. Like in California, it will only probably go back in forth and draw the quiet majority into voting behind the scenes and at the polls to defeat the matter simply because in the majority of the community this is a very man-made status of conscious. Public consciousness is individual, goup and public assumption; i.e., if it is not normal in my neighborhood why would anyone approve something which might make me/you uncomfortable. Rights is one thing, status declaration is another.
I.E., there will never be a lasting or permanent "for same-sex 'marriage' law" until marriage and the houses of faith become state, give up their purpose in the family, and the population of couples approaches being about 40% of more same-sex. Further, the burden on employers to sort out types of families bias could never be fair across the county. Like the type of same-sex relationships, its a personal choice which cannot be written well in law.
All arguments to the contrary are mute; there is no majority “same-sex-marriage support” for permanency of such as there is no Aquarian Renaissance.

@Dave: are you nuts?

"GIVE them rights?" Who do you think you are, "giving" people rights? This is America. Gays are citizens, they have the exact same rights as everyone else. Sooner or later the state and federal legislatures will have to accept that.

Get over your childish prejudices. America does not (or isn't SUPPOSED to) discriminate.

As a gay man, I think this is wonderful! I can't wait to see the look on my lover's face when I get down on one knee, pull out a ring, and ask the ever-so-romantic question, "Will you civil-unionize me?"

This is sad, when bigots cannot accept someone different from themselves. Does anyone remember when blacks weren't allowed to marry whites? Besides, marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS TERM. Holy Matrimony is the religious term. Marriage is a legal term. Get it straight (pun intended)..........

W.N.B.E.: The "taxable, etc" benefits of same-sex marriage would be exactly the same as for 'traditional' marriage. You and other's who bring religion into the debate are using it to hide your bigotry.
My wife and I were married by a JOP in a hotel ballroom in another state. No church involved in any way shape, or form. We moved to a different state, then moved here. Every place we lived we were legally married.
If same-sex couples accept this proposal they would risk losing everything they build together if they choose to move elsewhere. That's why the marriage/civil union distinction is untenable.

Since I'm an atheist who didn't have a religious wedding ceremony, does that mean that my marriage will be downgraded to a "civil union"?

What a joke. Civil marriage (which is what straight people get at city hall every day) is not a religious institution, and the government doesn't have any right to regulate religious institutions or declare civil institutions religious. The fact that you can get your minister to sign the documents saying that you got married doesn't change the fact that marriage, in regards to the law's rights and obligations for married people, is a civil institutions.

Most gay couples just want access to what straight people have -- civil marriage. Whether religious institutions recognize that or not is their business. Some (like the United Church of Christ) already do. Some religious institutions, like the Catholic Church, already don't recognize valid civil marriages (if one of the partners had a church wedding and got divorced, in the case of the Catholics).

...really, MrRational? I fail to see how granting a separate status is full civil rights equality. I'm surprised that someone with a name like yours would even be able to come to that conclusion.

If you create a parallel status, you are essentially putting into law that they are second-class citizens. It is not just semantics, it is about full equality, to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Throwing a bone does not do this.

Does anyone have a link to what this bill actually entails? What I have heard is that it would say ALL MARRIAGES going forward in the state of Maryland would be considered civil unions by the state, and treated equally regardless of same or opposite sex couples, and that the term marriage would only be applied by the church if they perform the ceremony or recognize the union as such. Everyone would be equally in Civil Unions in the eyes of the state/not two classes. If that is the case it may be an interesting solution to this ongoing debate over the application of the term marriage, who owns it, and how it should be used. The church alone would own the term.. It is a possibility that could have national implications! I married my same sex partner of 14 years in Washington last May when it became legal to do so. It affected no one but us. Our church here would have had no issue of performing our ceremony if it were legal to do so in Maryland. That means we would and are considered married in the eyes of our church. If someone was of different beliefs, we would have civil union only to them/not marriage. It would not be a marriage in the eyes of a faith that does not support it, but in the eyes of the state it would make no difference. What do we care if a different church considers us married or not? That detail separates Church and Church as well as Church and State.... Seriously, what is in the bill?

The whole notion that governance should meet the approval of religious leaders and institutions is totally ridiculous. If religious organizations want to have a voice in governing the state, then they should pay full income and property taxes instead of the zero they do pay. Budget deficits solved!

It is easy to cry bigotry. But it doesn't have to be about bigotry, nor about religion. Traditional and same-sex unions have radically different capabilities to generate children without anyone else's help. Society may reasonably wish to distinguish on that basis.

There is a lot of perspective missing if people who would benefit from this legislation would complain about it. What is the likelihood of gay marriage getting approved on a national level? This is not the kind of issue that the Supreme Court will decide on a 5-4 vote. If the right remaining to be provided after civil union is portability between states as with traditional marriage, you're not getting it either way from states that don't wish to cooperate.
And states that do cooperate will grant the rights either way. So there doesn't seem to be anything denied by calling it something other than marriage.

What does the Bible say about this?

Romans 1:26 . . . God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

NIV

@adam: As you have chosen to avoid my statement about avoiding the semantic abyss let me now weigh in on my view:

My rationality leads me to believe that when the dust settles the terms "marriage" and "matrimony" (holy or heathen) will belong to the religious institutions and I frankly have no problem with that. (See professor McIntyre when he returns from the UK for more clarity)

Cutting to the chase, the civil document received at the Court House and commonly referred to as a "marriage license' (and btw the only aspect of this which matters) and the ONLY aspect of this which embodies legal status in the US... is where the argument is to be made.

Clearer?

I'm a straight woman who would much prefer to have a civil union, rather than a marriage. The two issues I see are the statutes that refer to the term "marriage" and DOMA. Let's work together to change those!

Were the government to do marriage legally, it would be to issue a civil union license with a government certificate number, to ALL citizens and legalize it federally first. THEN, if any couples want the church to sanction the civil union as a marriage, let them do it! There are now straight AND GLBT supportive churches who will marry the couples and everyone SHOULD be happy with this arrangement. I'm betting the rightwingbats won't be happy with any solution, however!

marriedalready wrote: "Does anyone have a link to what this bill actually entails? What I have heard is that it would say ALL MARRIAGES going forward in the state of Maryland would be considered civil unions by the state, and treated equally regardless of same or opposite sex couples, and that the term marriage would only be applied by the church if they perform the ceremony or recognize the union as such. Everyone would be equally in Civil Unions in the eyes of the state/not two classes. If that is the case it may be an interesting solution to this ongoing debate over the application of the term marriage, who owns it, and how it should be used. The church alone would own the term...."
------------------------------
I'm sorry I didn't read your comment first marriedalready. This is exactly what I proposed as a solution to the bickering back and forth. IF this is what the bill entails, I'm all for it! It's about time this simple solution was implemented! As I said before, I'm sure the rightwingbats still won't be satisfied. Oh well... boo hoo.
Dakotahgeo, M.Div. Pastor/Chaplain