House committee vote on marriage delayed
UPDATE: A House of Delegates panel is slated to vote today on whether to forward a same-sex marriage bill to the entire 141-member chamber -- but a mid-day voting attempt was stymied by what appeared to be a walk-out of some of the bill's supporters.
Dels. Jill Carter and Curt Anderson, Baltimore Democrats, and Tiffany Alston, a Prince George's Democrat, were not present for what was to be a special voting session on gay marriage. Supporters of the same-sex marriage plan said Carter is trying to draw attention to a separate and unrelated bill she has sponsored that is also pending before the House Judiciary Committee. That measure would presume joint custody of children in divorces.
Anderson, who appeared at the voting session and then left, said he went to search for Alston and Carter. Neither of those delegates could immediately be reached for comment. Chairman Joseph F. Vallario, an opponent of same-sex marriage, delayed the vote until after 1 p.m. bill hearings.
***
A bare majority of members of the House Judiciary Committee are co-sponsors of the House version of the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which was approved last week by the Senate. If, as anticipated, the House committee votes out the Senate plan today, the full House could begin debate on the divisive issue as early as tomorrow.
The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 25-21, but passage in the House is far from assured. The bill's lead sponsors said last week that they believe they are a few votes shy of the 71 needed.
Judiciary members listened to eight hours and 10 minutes of testimony Friday from dozens of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.
Judiciary members after the jump.
Civil Marriage bill sponsors starred.
Chair: Joseph F. Vallario, Jr.
Vice Chair: Kathleen M. Dumais *
Tiffany S. Alston *
Susan C. Lee *
Curt Anderson *
Susan K. McComas
Sam Arora *
Michael A. McDermott
Jill P. Carter *
Keiffer J. Mitchell, Jr. *
Luke H. Clippinger *
Neil C. Parrott
John W. E. Cluster, Jr.
Luiz R. S. Simmons *
Frank M. Conaway, Jr. *
Michael D. Smigiel, Sr.
Don Dwyer, Jr.
Kris Valderrama *
Michael J. Hough
Geraldine Valentino-Smith
Kevin Kelly
Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher *
Categories: 2011 legislative session
Comments
enough is enough. shoot that nonsense down now or later.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2011 10:43 AM
Funny thing is that it WILL be passed sooner or later. It's only a matter of time.
Posted by: Tim McReynolds | March 1, 2011 11:03 AM
My spouse and I (married in DC last April) have been together for 27 years. He is a decorated war veteran, shot down twice by Nazi anti-aircraft fire. I am a corporate pilot. Together we have taken care of elderly and infirm relatives which no one else in our families would bother doing. We have supported each other in every way. We have every right to be married in our own state and no one has come up with a good argument otherwise--there aren't any.
Posted by: Larry Esser | March 1, 2011 11:26 AM
Mary Washington strikes me as just the sort who would pull a stunt like this. My impression of her - based on limited meetings - is that she is brash, impulsive, and cares more about making headlines than about making good policy.
* FROM JULIE: Mary Washington is not on this committee and was not part of any walk-out.
Posted by: baltmoron | March 1, 2011 12:12 PM
DO you know if there has been a Whip count and who is opposing or may be on the fence?
Posted by: DanO | March 1, 2011 12:25 PM
Here's our fair state of MD again. Diving down the slippery slope to liberal hell. No big surprise.
Posted by: Mark | March 1, 2011 12:45 PM
How is this affecting anyone let these people live as well it's sad how cruel the world can be...... I VOTE for IT
Posted by: anoynomous | March 1, 2011 12:52 PM
Can someone explain to me how this became the most urgent issue that our government has to address now? Might I suggest working on the State and County deficits, service shortfalls and other issues? Don't these items require a long series of hard decsions that might be construed as having a greater impact to our society?
Come on folks! Focus on what is important or do we have to start telling the emperor that his new clothes are really his birthday suit!
Posted by: CFS | March 1, 2011 1:41 PM
To the idiots who insist that this is a liberal bill, please note that I am a libertarian and an independent. I worked on Barry Goldwater's campaign for president as an 18 year old. I am also 'straight'.
What separates me from many/most of today’s 'conservatives' is that I really am a conservative and not a theocrat. Plain and simple, it's none of my or your business if two people want to get married, no matter what their sex.
Posted by: eric | March 1, 2011 1:52 PM
Amen... perhaps a miracle will happen and the house will focus on the issues pressing in Maryland... Important and vital to all Marylanders not just 9% of the population.
Posted by: Dr. Ben J Lahay | March 1, 2011 2:24 PM
not just a measure that would presume joint custody, but one that would force children into equal-time joint custody-- a horrible, horrible idea. Shame on you Jill Carter!
Posted by: mb | March 1, 2011 2:45 PM
This is a stupid publicity ploy. The house needs to get back to business so we all can move on with our lives. Enough already. Quit playing games.
Posted by: Cham | March 1, 2011 3:27 PM
Tell Carter, Anderson and Alston to kiss their seats goodbye. How dare they ask that ANYONE wait a little longer for their civil rights? Particularly to promote a self-serving bill that sacrifices the well being of children to panhandle a few votes. The three of them are pathetic bottom-feeders.
Posted by: kemp | March 1, 2011 5:32 PM