This has nothing whatever to do with religion. Same sex couples ask for a civil marriage before a judge, like heterosexual couples have. They do not ask for a religious sacrament and, therefore, religion should stop at the courthouse door.

This has nothing whatever to do with religion. Same sex couples ask for a civil marriage before a judge, like heterosexual couples have. They do not ask for a religious sacrament and, therefore, religion should stop at the courthouse door.

Really O'Malley? Really? "We Should let the people decide"? Since when are civil rights up to majority vote? Should we have let Alabama and Mississippi decide in the 1960s about integration or interracial marriage by putting the civil rights of an entire population of people up for majority vote?

Typical O'Smelly double-talk; on the one hand he urges delegates to hurry up and pass the measure, while on the other he proclaims that the people should decide. It's too bad the referendum couldn't have been on the ballot last year, at the same time Boy Blunder was running for re-election. We could have thrown out two bad apples at one time.

No surprise, But the context? OM takes no position while the issue is in doubt. Then he takes a position as House passage is likely. He'll of course explain why he can do this as an active communicant with the RC Church. No he won't. Hypocrisy is rampant with this mendacious person. I have no doubt the "people" in general support him and the legisators, and don't care how this symbolic trashing of traditional sexual mores was accomplished. O'Malley does represent his consttutency. Which is why Democracy was despised by most of our Founding Fathers. (Shock shock to all you graduates of the #1 School System in mediocre ObamaAmerica.) tweste"oomxsltorsiegigeneralvvveveh.soneistiwhtposte the le

Wayne, I really don't disagree, and I am a limited govt conservative. But, let' call all civil joining of couples, hetero and homo, civil unions. Marriage is for church. Marriage began as a religious idea to provide structure for procreation and family law. Let the chuches decide who'll they'll marry or not. The judges and officers can do civil unions for all couples of all genders. Equality and seperation of church and state.

If the Governor is in favor of putting my rights as a citizen of Maryland up for a popoular vote, then he is no better then those who are openly hostile. A true supporter of equality will support passage of marriage equality legislation and fight like hell to make sure a referendum never happens.

OMG What has come over our Governor? Leadership. It looks so sweet on him. Finally...on this issue. Way to go O'Malley. A little late, but better late than never. Thank you for inserting yourself and acting leaderly.

But wait....

That being said, it is outrageous for him to say "we should let the people decide"! What other protected class of people have their rights voted on except the gays? It is not taking a courageous stand if you follow that up quickly with how the people can overturn this.

And I am endlessly baffled by how religion is even relevant here and why we need to strike the right balance. This bill allows for a state recognized marriage and state rights and benefits associated with that. It has NOTHING to do with religion or churches or religious people. That is a complete fallacy and just something that has been cooked up by fearmongers. It is not logical at all, but yet somehow everyone (including our Governor) has fallen into talking about it in that way. As far as I'm concerned, the religious provisions added into the law are absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous as the law does not impact religions, churches, or religious people at all. Churches can and always have been able to marry anyone they want and religious people have always been able to say whatever they want and think whatever they want about people getting married or groups of people allowed to get married. This law does not change that. It has nothing to do with that. That's all smoke and mirrors and it's sad how effective it is.

didactic1, do you feel that Roman Catholics should work to ban civil divorce? If not, then why does it matter what an RC politician believes about civil marriage?

O'Malley was against gay marriage, but for civil unions and now he's for gay marriage. He opposed slots, but pushed for them. And O'Malley said a tax is a fee, said 2011 will have no tax hikes, but alas he proposes dozens of new and increased fees.

Governor Hypocrisy strikes again!

An immoral bill being advocated by an immoral man. And this clown is a Catholic. If the Catholic Church had any guts they'd tell this fraud that the next time we wanted to take Communion he should try the Inner Harbor with the birds! Thirty years ago nobody would have believed this. In another thirty years nobody will think there is anything wrong with marrying your cat or your sister!

didactic1

Actually Marriage origionally had nothing to do with relgion. It was a political and financial tool.

Marriage was used to improve a families fortunes, get them better connections, end wars, forge alliances, etc, etc.

It was a concept practiced in many civilized cultured that had nothing to do with Christianity until the church co-opted it in order to have more control over people's lives.

If it were a relgious ceremony you wouldn't be acknowledging Atheist marriages, or those performed outside the bounds of your religion.

The simple fact is that Marriage is, and always has been, a CIVIL issue.

Hey MOM we elect you folk to make these decisions for us.
This guy punts on the issues more than NFL punters do.

As a governor he is not perfect, But he is streets ahead of the last moron we had in office.

David, are you seriously comparing a long-term, committed gay relationship to "marrying your cat"? What do you think is the proper role for gay people in today's society?

@ David
Most people are retarded, you are one of them. If people got their heads out of their aholes, this country wouldn't be in the trouble it's in. Fight your reps to bring back jobs, end free trade, and bring higher standards of living to all and not the few. Gays getting married will not destroy us as Americans; ignorance will. Fight over giving your kids a future, not over ending a fellow Americans pursuit of happiness. Stop worry about how others live, if they’re not hurting you. You would be better off fighting what does hurt you, your own ignorance.

Hey O'Malley were you elected by just 3% of the total population of Maryland? If not, why are you signing legislation making a puny, deviant segment of the population a 'special' class?

He's a Catholic and he's okay with infanticide? God has a Big Foot.

@David
30 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Nowadays, with so many multi-racial couples, the younger generations just can't grasp why it was ever such a big deal. In another 30 years, gay marriage will be such commonplace that you will find an opinion like yours to be in the margins of society, and people will pity you for your blatant ignorance while you still yap nonsense about marring animals.

aye, and a fine irish catholic lad he is.

If the Catholic Church had any guts they'd tell this fraud that the next time (h)we wanted to take Communion ..... they're too busy playing chase the altar boy around the altar. Been there, done that.

The idea of "equality" and "the pursuit of happiness" is the illusion created by man's finite political ability. How can you serve a people who by definition of concept thrive on a certain individuality. Whether it be religion, culture, gender or sexual preference, equality cannot be judged by a majority. I am not gay but cannot understand America's ability to constantly fail at the interpretation of equality. It burns me to hear the hypocritical ideologies and themes of the day only to hear the opposite next week for benefit of some personal pursuit or agenda. How can one find "truth" in America when it is subjective to the times, money or both.

Corey a fair point you make. Marriage was integral, and still is, to some extent, to the distribution of property after death and its administration during the life of the couple. But it was until the mid twentieth century,and correct me if I'm wrong, also wrapped in religion because people believed that procreation has a divine purpose. And even if you're not a literalist about the Bible,and I'm not, the reproduction of species(Darwin) might define why we are here. So important that it's "sacred". So if the concept of marriage has evolved, and I agree it has to some extent, then why get hung up over the word. Respect the feelings of religious traditionalists who do contribute on the whole to our social stability and cultural and artistic heritage. Respect the feelings of couples who don't want or need religious sanction for marriage. How? Phase out the term "marriage" for all civil ceremonies and certificates. Get married in church if you must get married. Treat all offspring of all unions equally and apply estate laws equally. Prejudice against gays(and divisions between classes and races) will always exist; no, we are not all the same. We need a code of manners, mutually agreed, to get along, function, and use energies to preserve our speciies in general, which faces bigger dangers than "gay marriage" or "religion".

Anyone see that helicopter over North Baltimore this morning? I was driving to work around 5:30am, and this helicopter was hovering over I-395 with some kind of blimp scroll, reading: "LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE? GROW A SET, O'MALLEY." I can't stop laughing! Who did this? Anyone?

They're only thinking about VOTES. They could give a rats a'' about you, they're forgetting about their children/grand children having to grow up in this type of family environment.

I wonder if it is possible for this to drag on anymore, to cost more?
Seriously - I can not believe this is up for debate. Equal rights for all citizens - how can anyone even consider putting that up for the public to vote on. Again - this is about equal rights for all people. How is this even debatable? I am just stunned at this country.

Well the governor is a cheater anyway...next he will support a fornication referendum, for himself and others like him. Nonetheless Marriage is defined as the union of a MAN AND A WOMAN...not Adam and Steve or Rene and Bertha...But they are the only ones who will stand before God for their sexual preference in life.......so let them

didactic1,

It was wrapped up in religion because it was a route to power. Durring the darker ages of Eurpean history, the Church was very big on accumulating as much power as possible. Previous to that marriage was very much a civil institution, openly recognized as a political and economic tool.

Even when the Church co-opted it, it was still only a civil tool, but also a more powerful one because of the religious backing.

While some people attribute it's importance to procreation, it really has nothing to do with it. People can still breed without marriage, and there is no requirement to produce offspring assigned to married couples.

And I agree, that objectively speaking it's only a word. However, if you are asking why it's so important to gay marriage supporters that it be called Marriage, I would ask why it's so important to opponents that it not be so named. It is just a word.

But the truth is that it's not about the word, it's about equality. Seperate but equal has never been equal. People who oppose gay marriage want to keep the word for themselves so they can feel their relationships are "real" and therefore superior. Even if they don't admit it to themselves.

Proponents feel that without the word they will not be regarded as truly equal and legitimate.

So really, this is about not only factual equality, but the perception of equality. Perceptions are, after all, very important to people.

Actually, you've got it all wrong.

In a representative democracy, according to my old civics classes, the elected official is supposed to 'represent' the views of his constituents, not push forth his own agenda.

Government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is supposed to be just that.

Unfortunately, most of the numb-nuts who pass for informed voters try to find someone who holds the same views they do rather than holding them to do what it is they are supposed to do.

Since the majority (the ruling section of a democracy) in this state seem to be against the use of the word 'marriage' in conjunction with a same sex union, the bill currently before the General Assembly should be defeated.

However, just so many of the so-called liberals in this state can say, "Well we voted for it for you" and look good to their liberal friends, the issue is in doubt.

O'Money and his fellow 'politically correct' group are just playing the ends against the middle. He's a darn good politician...just a pathetic leader.

I think they go hand in hand.

Gov. O'Malley thank you! My family came to Baltimore in 1732 with Lord Baltimore to serve as city planner. I'm glad to see that a land my family help to built and even protected during the civil war will once again be a land for all! Thanks Martin you are the MAN!

Ed, Ed, Ed...

"Fifty-one percent of voters say they would favor a law in Maryland allowing same-sex couples to marry, “giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples in areas such as tax exemptions, inheritance and pension coverage,” while 44% oppose such a law, and 5% gave no response.

By party, 65% of Democrats and 52% of independents favor a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, while 73% of Republicans oppose it.

With regard to a law in Maryland allowing same-sex couples to form a civil union, 62% say they favor such a law, while 34% are opposed.

By party, 73% of Democrats and 60% of independents favor a law allowing same-sex couples to form a civil union, while 54% of Republicans oppose it."

Facts don't lie, but when you claim the people are opposed to gay marriage in Maryland - you obviously do.

Matt P

PLEASE quote your source before you go claiming something is fact.

And then please learn to read.

I said, " Since the majority (the ruling section of a democracy) in this state seem to be against the use of the word 'marriage' in conjunction with a same sex union, the bill currently before the General Assembly should be defeated."

I didn't say anything about being against a gay union.

Now, you want to try that again you?

I should hope that practicing Christians take the Bible literally about their own lives- an instruction guide for Christian living.

They can still cut other people a break who aren't saved though.