From the office of Del. Kathy Szeliga:
Dear Friends,
We are already into week 5 of our 14 week Legislative Session. Things are starting to heat up!
My 1st Bill Hearing!
HB 141 – Property Tax – Assessment Appeal Hearings – Right to Record was heard in the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. The hearing went very well and I’m hoping to see this bill pass out of that committee in the next couple of weeks. This bill will ensure all Maryland property owners the right to record their property tax appeal hearing. Currently, some counties allow it and others do not.
Thanks to LeRoy Whitely and Tony Passaro, both from Harford County, who came to Annapolis to testify in favor of this bill!
Annapolis Visitors This Week
This week, there were a lot of visitors to the Maryland General Assembly. Two of my favorites are Lisa Mullen of North Harford Middle School – Harford County’s Teacher of the Year. Lisa was honored in the House and is pictured here with the Harford County Delegates.
My other exciting visitor was Jessie and his mom, Theresa, from Edgewood. Jessie was here with some people from the ARC – an organization that supports individuals and families living with developmental disabilities. The ARC is a wonderful organization that serves our disabled community with honor and grace.
Gay Marriage
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (SB 116) had a hearing last week. Under current State law, only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in Maryland. SB 116 repeals the reference to a man and a woman and specifies that only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in Maryland.
SB 116 passed out of the Judiciary Committee Thursday by a vote of 7-4. It is expected to be up for a vote on the Senate Floor next week. It seems as though it will pass out of the Senate next week!
I am in favor of the current Maryland law that defines marriage between a man and a woman. If this bill reaches the House of Delegates, I will support traditional marriage.
Thanks for your continued support and encouragement. I am humbled and honored to be representing you and your family in Annapolis.
Kathy Szeliga
Maryland House of Delegates
Ms. Szeliga–
Please do not support discrimination in this great state of Maryland. You are too forward a thinker to deny Marylanders the right to love. I supported you in the election, and I would appreciate your support so that my partner of 33 years and myself could finally get married in the state we’ve grown up in, and plan to die in. I ask you to reconsider your stance on SB-116 and do not deny your constituents marriage equality. If you supported SB-116, this would have no impact on your personal life or any impact on the personal lives of those Marylanders who are opposed to it. Instead, it would grant a basic civil right to a group who needs your support.
God bless.
Since you don’t define marriage to be between one woman and one man, I’m sure you are enough of a forward thinker to redefine it to include two men, or two women, or one man and multiple women, or one woman and multiple men, or multiple men and multiple women?
After all, wouldn’t that be granting a basic civil right to a group of constituents? If you are talking civil rights and the right to love, is there really any difference in these situations?
The civil code of Maryland still considers the act of giving and receiving oral sex as a punishable offenses. Before invading other people’s bedrooms with new stupid laws, I am petitioning Del. Szeliga to disclose if she has ever been in violation of the laws on the books. How often and when last?
Please realize we are in 2011. Marriage and the rights afforded to it are universal and should be open to all willing to enter into such a sacred union. From a married hetero male.
Del. Szeliga,
You are correct, marriage should remain man and woman. It has nothing to do with it being 2011. If “gay” marriage is allowed in MD, what you will see next is forced education of our kids that homosexuality is OK, that they must be tolerate, and accept it as normal (and it is not normal). Sorry, I just can’t accept it.
As far as the liberals who are supporting this bill, do what you do best, and start your name calling, but this is the way I feel about this topic. I do find that those who seek tolerance, are they themselves the most intolerate.
If this is put to the voters in MD, the bill will likely fail.
Rob,
for too long I have read your crappy, uber right wing posts that amount to nothing more than you being a thoughtless teabagger. I apologize for insulting you but please learn how to write intelligently. Then, I may even agree with you.
Who cares if same sex couples get married? Would it hurt you or anyone else, if so please articulate with something intelligent for a change.
I am Heterosexual and do not fear that society will collapse if same sex couples can marry. It will not make a bit of difference other than to those same sex couples who want to have the same spousal rights that trad’l husbands and wives do. Homosexuality is not my style but it doesn’t offend or scare me. There are a lot of Heterosexuals who commit crimes, murder, steal, cheat on their spouses and taxes, etc…. Just ask some of the Catholic Priests who condemn Homosexuality and were then caught having sex with young boys. Big difference between pedofiles and Homosexuals. One is a criminal who we should incarcerate and the other simply has a different choice of sexual interests, that are harmless and no one else’s business.
That said, you really need to tone down your rhetoric about “liberals” this and that. I was a registered Republican for too long until I couldn’t take the fact that my party’s members were corrupted and sold out to the religious right. I will continue to be conservative in many ways, but the bottom line is our U.S. Constitution and Maryland Constitution says all people are created equally and have equal rights. If we support the Constitution, you have to make room for all to share these liberties. Get over your anger, stop hating and being afraid. You have every right not to be friends with anyone you choose. Just stop expecting society to agree exactly the way you do.
I hope this matter does get put before the voters in Maryland. It is just too controversial an issue to be determined by the legislature alone.
Dream on Gibby. Our legislature knows what is good for us. There is no way we can allow the common man to decide what is right or wrong.
The people should not be able to vote on the civil rights of a minority.
Who should? Anyone?
The fact that there are people out there so against two people loving each other is crazy. It is none of our business what goes on in someone elses home as long as no one is being hurt. I am a married, conservative Christian, but if I had a child who was gay, I would want them to be able to live a happy life instead of hiding.
Maryland prohibits people from loving each other?
I am opposed to legalizing gay marriage.
This does not mean that I am anti-gay relationships/couples. That is not my right to judge the behavior of any adult’s private lives.
The state or federal govt. does not have the right to enter their private lives, either. Marriage is between one man and one woman. It is not a free-for-all for multiples, human and animals, children and adults or same sex partners.
Pat, The government has already entered private lives by defining marriage as between one man and one woman. They have already entered private lives by offering tax breaks to those who fit their description of married. Do you understand that?
The government needs to treat ALL citizens equally. The same rights that the government currently extends to married couples need to be given to gay couples as well. This means marriage in the eyes of the government. If the Catholic/Baptist/Methodist/Church of What’s Happening Now, do not want to perform or recognize gay marriage, that is their right as private institutions. But the government needs to treat all of it’s citizens equally…and currently they are not.
Since Mike Dahlberg has not responded to my comment above concerning extending this basic civil right (as he calls it) to all citizens, would you care to? Do you really want government to treat all of its citizens equally?
I am not sure what you mean Phil. Of course I want all citizens to be treated equally. How could anyone be opposed to that?
Do you believe all persons should pay the same percent of tax on earned income? That would be equal treatment.
from my post to Mike Dahlberg:
“Since you don’t define marriage to be between one woman and one man, I’m sure you are enough of a forward thinker to redefine it to include two men, or two women, or one man and multiple women, or one woman and multiple men, or multiple men and multiple women?”
Should all of these citizens be “treated equally”?
Perhaps sister could marry sister, or brother marry brother, why not?
@retired, this is not about incest. This is not a slippery slope to mass hedinonism either. Why don’t you use some of that free time you have to come up with a better reason to continue treating your fellow human beings with utter disrespect and disregard because that one is just lame.
Of course it’s not about incest. Marriage is not about the sex, it’s about equal rights. Utter disgust? I could care less if the same sex marry. I don’t label people, nor should you.
@Rubygirl, I agree that any and all benefits afforded to married couples should be granted to gay/lesbian couples – through legal unions. I do not think marriage is the real problem and even if every state recognized them it won’t make the staring in the mall and the whispered comments go away. Some in the gay/lesbian community won’t be happy until everyone embraces their lifestyle choice as right and wholesome. Frankly, I think it would be interesting to see if that group would fair any better at avoiding divorce than the hetero community.
Why call it legal unions though? That is not what the government calls the union of a hetero couple so why should it be any different for a gay couple? I don’t get it.
@Retired, actually, I do believe that it would make things a lot more fair and equal for everyone to pay the same percentage. But that is not what this discussion is about, and I don’t want to see it get off track.
@Rubygirl, one who was only interested in the legal aspects of receiving the same tax status or legal standing with regard to possessions, living will type decisions, inheritance, etc. as a hetero married couple would accept the legal union moniker and be happy… unless of course the real object of protest is the term marriage and the tax issue was only a red herring…
Sadly, acceptance cannot be mandated by legislation.
I did not intend for the discussion to get off track. My point was the word equal. There is a big difference between equal and “fair”. You stated that you would want all to be treated equally… while this is possible it is not practical… fair is, in my mind, what we should be looking to do.
Pat Sweety,
Guess what, the state or federal govt. is already involved in your private life…even worse, Big business as in the private sector is in deeper. Compounding this is the fact that organized religion has corrupted politicians. Wake up and make some coffee.
Do you not understand the difference between homosexuality, pedophelia and beastiality?
Ms McGrady,
I suggest to you respectfully that you will one day be embarrassed by your post in much the same way that we as a nation are embarrassed by similiar issues of the past; like in your case, a woman’s right to vote.
As a life time conservative with really important fiscal issues on my mind I worry about the far right mind mud wallowing on issues like this and how hard it will remain to be for candidates like your son to ever get any electible traction standing beside you in the mire.
Maryland prohibits people from “loving each other”
Truthbtold,
Chill out before you have a heart attack. Oh, and yeah, stop being so silly.
Rob,
Perhaps you see that you may be a bit too far to the right for the mainstream. No reason to hate anyone or be angry. You are definitely entitled to your opinion. The middle of the road is where all politicians need to be. The extremists on both ends are out of touch, which has caused the national deficit to grow out of control and contributed to other major headaches that are straining this great country. The religious right needs to get out of politics.
I love that Republicans who are always preaching ‘small government’ have no problem preventing two people of the same sex to marry each other.
OK, so now we’re 0 for 2 with supporters responding to my inquiry about “basic civil rights” for ALL citizens.
Let’s try something else now. Here’s my proposed solution:
1. The government gets out of the marriage business and conducts civil unions for male/female and same-sex couples.
2. Legally recognized churches/synogogues/other spiritual entities conduct marriages for male/female couples.
3. Legally recognized spiritual entities perform to-be-named-later (and not ‘marriage’) ceremonies for same-sex couples.
All three unions possess identical legal rights and responsibilities. Questions? Comments?
1. Works for me actually.
2. Again, works for me.
3. Errrrr, nope sorry. Some legally recognized churches (the Episcopal church for instance) will perform same-sex marriages. They are already doing so where legal.
We have seen how well seperate but equal has worked in the past, we should not be looking to make that same mistake again.
There will always be injustices in this world, and there will never be some picture perfect Utopian society, but we should fix the injustices and inequities that are within our reach. This issue is one of them, and taking some peoples extreme religious views out of the equation, I don’t see how anyone can object.
You must not be looking hard enough. I am far from a religious extremist and I object. Where you and I differ is in the belief that anyone or any group can redefine words to suit their own purposes, no matter how grand or noble these purposes are.
One example of extremism is the stubborn demand to use the word “marriage” when the majority of people have a certain traditional definition of it, and this stubborness has been holding back progress toward the goal of equal rights for all couples. It’s clear that gay “marriage” with all of the rights of straight marriage would not have nearly the same amount of resistance if the players in this fight would simply drop the demand for the term “marriage”. To equate this with historical attempts at “separate but equal” is sheer nonsense and an insult to the fight for civil rights for blacks.
Hey, I think I’ll open a Kosher BBQ shack featuring pork ribs. I like the idea of having a strict set of dietary laws (I’ll write my own) and besides, it’s just a word. I can redefine it to fit my needs, can’t I?
And nobody seems to want to touch the idea of equality for those with multiple partners. “Basic civil rights for me, but not for thee”?
You might find the vague comparison offensive, but civil rights are civil rights. Sorry you disagree.
As for redefining the definition of a word, it’s just that a word. If you want to open a BBQ joint, serve pork and call it kosher, that’s your business. If people don’t want to broaden the definition of the word marriage to include same-sex couples, they personally don’t have to do so.
And to be perfectly honest about two things. a.) I fully 100% support same-sex marriage, and part of me agrees that this would all be easier if those involved would be content with civil unions, but the other part does understand why it’s important to those involved to be able to be “married”. b.)I, quite frankly do not care what consenting adults choose to do in their homes and their bedrooms. If they want 3 spouses fine. But logistically, the way our tax system and such is set up it would be impossible to pass the benefits of marriage onto those in a plural marriage. What others do in their homes has no effect on me. It isn’t a lifestyle I would choose, but who am I to condemn other adults for their choices in that arena. Happy you got your answer?
I think this is simple. The state should have stayed the hell out of the marrige buisness period. My religion does not call for the state to endorse my marrige. SImply my wifes and my consent. I paid a tax to the state to give me the privelage to check a special box on my taxes to get taxed at a lower rate.
The federal government alone accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status.
Here are just a few of those benefits:
Unpaid leave in order to care for an ill spouse under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act;
Social Security — survivor benefits; spousal benefits;
Unlimited exemptions from federal gift and estate taxes on transfers to spouse;
Marital communication privilege — right not to testify against one’s spouse.
Everyone knows what marriage means. In an emergency, would you want to explain to an EMT that you’ve been “civilly united” and have the right to make critical medical decisions?
States that have created civil union as a means of both giving and withholding—providing legal protections while withholding the freedom to marry and all its meaning—have recognized that civil union falls far short of marriage with all its tangible and intangible significance in our lives.
Not only does civil union lack the respect and personal significance that comes with marriage, it does not adequaretly protect same-sex couples and their families.
If that’s really what the fight is all about, why not avoid pissing off a huge number of Americans and change the law to give civil unions the same legal rights and responsibilites as marriages?
Same sex marriage will not instantly gain “respect” with many people just because politicians make it legal. Equality for civil unions would be acceptable to the majority, and would gain exactly what you stated.
We have to destroy the status quo of traditional marriage and replace it with a multicultural new world order with no bounds on gender, persons or species absent any restrictions.
Better yet just give everyone a civil union and leave marrige to religious institutions.
CDEV is right! If married persons wants to add their union a third entity of any species or gender should be allowed to do so. If same or opposite gender siblings want to be joined in civil union they should be allowed as well.
You miss my point. I don’t need the blessing of a govt. to get married. I simply do so with the blessing of the church.
CDEV if your church recognizes gay, plural, interspecies and all other combinations the government should give it the same standing as heterosexual marriage between a man and woman.
Last time I checked the Catholic Church does not approve of gay marriage. My point is Marriage is a religious institution and the State should stay the HELL out.
CDEV you should change to a church that allows for gay, plural, interspecies and all other combinations.
Which species is your preference?
Why not approve all unions as marriage inclusive of opposite, same, multi-person in all combinations up to ten people of any gender, no age limits and human with animals of the same or opposite gender? It’s all good, right?
To Ms. McGrady and others, enough with the silliness. No one is calling for anything as extreme as you’ve mentioned. And by the way, we’ve seen this before…the “slippery slope” argument.
“It is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing it. If the argument were true, wouldn’t that the demand for outrageous couplings have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn’t they have ‘slid’ towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It’s a classic scare tactic – making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the “slippery slope” were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so every day. Where’s the outrage? Of course there isn’t any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue.”
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
JOSEPH C. SMITH, we are with you! We will get marriage redefined to include all manner and combination persons, sexualities and species. Marriage must become what we want it to be, it should have no restrictions.
It now passed the Senate and goes to the House. It’s likely the House will pass it as well. And of course Marty boy Owe’ Malley said he will sign it. Those in Annapolis obviously do not represent the majority of Marylanders and the only thing that will rid this state of the bill will be a referendum. There is a reason why there are only five other states (Maryland will become the 6th) to recognize same-sex marriage. Have fun explaining to your child what is going on when he or she sees two guys making out on the park bench. What’s next . . . oh that’s right, this is 2011, anything goes . . .
I’m still waiting for the bunch of thugs in Annapolis to stop worrying about the gays and tell us how much more we are going to be taxed to fill “their” budget woes.