From the office of Del. Kathy Szeliga:
Dear Friends,
This was a VERY busy week in Annapolis. With just one month left in the legislative session, things are humming along at a faster pace. I’m sure April 11, Sine Die, will be here before we know it.
Gay Marriage Update
At about 3:00 today, SB 116, the Gay Marriage Bill, was turned back to the Judiciary Committee. After more than three hours of debate and commentary, it was evident that there were not enough votes to pass this bill. Instead of allowing the bill to die with less than 71 votes (simple majority is 71 votes needed for a bill to pass), the leadership in Annapolis thought it better to skip a vote on the floor of the House and return the bill to committee.
The level of respect and decorum displayed on the floor of the House of Delegates today was profound. I am proud to have been a part of this process. Although emotions run high with this issue, the tone of the debate and comments throughout the process have been kind and respectful of people’s lifestyles and religious views. I did speak on the floor on this issue on Tuesday during the second reading debate, along with a few other freshman delegates.
What does that mean for gay marriage this year? Unless the proponents of gay marriage have at least 71 hard commitments for this bill, we will not see it again! I’m SURE a bill for gay marriage or civil unions will be back next year.
THANK YOU for your work on this issue. I am grateful that gay marriage did not pass today and summarily change thousands of years of human history and tradition in one afternoon.
It looks like this issue is dead for the 2011 Legislative Session.
Instate Tuition Discounts for Illegal Immigrants
The Senate is getting ready to pass SB 167, which will grant instate tuition for “undocumented immigrants.” The House version of the bill, HB 470, had a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee this week also.
These bills will grant instate tuition at all public colleges and universities for anyone who has attended high school in Maryland for at least two years – regardless of their federal citizenship or legal presence in our state.
I was surprised to find out that our state schools and universities are supporting this measure. The University System of Maryland, in written testimony, stated that, “the pathway this bill provides is absolutely necessary.” The Maryland State Teacher’s Union says they are, “proud to support this legislation.” The Maryland State Board of Education “believes that HB 470 is sound educational policy…” The Maryland Association of Community Colleges also stated that, “HB 470 is good public policy.”
I am opposed to this legislation for numerous reasons. First and foremost we should not be encouraging people who are breaking our laws by living in our state and country illegally to continue to break our laws. It is unjust. Instead of getting instate tuition, these undocumented residents should return to their country of origin and apply to come to the United States just like the thousands of people who are attempting to immigrate to our country legally. This policy is rewarding bad and illegal behavior. And we know what happens when we reward bad behavior…. we get more bad behavior!!
It is unjust for taxpayers to be expected to pay the tuition supplement for those here illegally as well. Instate tuition rates are highly subsidized by Maryland taxpayers. For instance, taxpayers contribute more than $12,000 per year per student at the University of Maryland College Park. We taxpayers contribute at least 25% of the cost of community colleges.
This policy is also unjust for the illegal aliens we are educating. The primary purpose of a college education is to prepare the individual for the workforce. Without proper documentation- legal presence, these graduates cannot get a job. It seems cruel. We are subsidizing the education of illegal aliens while guaranteeing that they cannot get a job if they do not get or qualify for legal presence while being here illegally.
This bill will most likely pass out of the Maryland Senate next week. If it reaches the House I will vote NO if I get the chance. I will update you on this bill next week.
Rallies and Taxes
There was a Stop the Gas Tax Rally this week. I attended an Americans for Prosperity’s Rally in Lawyers Mall to let legislators know that we do not want a gas tax increase. I saw people from Baltimore and Harford Counties there.
Along with the gas tax, alcohol tax, millionaires tax, workers comp tax, we also have a proposed plastic bag tax! There are a number of bills in this year to tax plastic grocery bags at 5¢ each. The Sierra Club, Chesapeake Bay Trust, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others are all supporting this tax. I will be OPPOSING this tax.
Rally’s next week:
The Maryland March for Life is Monday night in Annapolis. Here is a link in case you’re interested in going to the 32nd Annual Maryland March for Life:
http://www.mdmarchforlife.org/
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
Next up on the agenda in Annapolis: Redefining the color blue: It can be red if you see it as red.
BOB – Been reading “1984” or watching “The Matrix”? In the game of chess, a black pawn or a white pawn is still a pawn!
Right. We can all agree to call a cat a dog, but that doesn’t make it so.
Legal A – No need to shout with caps. Again, a person is
either a part of solution or just another pawn in the tired old two party blame game. The two parties have become two sides of the same coin. They have both equally proven that they can not be trusted with the taxpayers hard earned dollars. They are being served by the taxpayers rather than serving the taxpayers. Career politicians of both parties have gotten “fat” on your tax dollars and mine. If you turn off the propaganda from the talking heads on FOX and/or MSNBC, you might see the light. It should not be about claiming you are “right” because your a Republican or Democrat. However, it is all about the “rights” of the hard-working, patriotic American taxpayers!
This deligate is a pig. So what if gay couples want to get married? The ‘institution of marriage’ is a joke, religion in politics is a joke and I wholeheartedly believe that these people who were elected are going to go down in Maryland history as bigots. I sincerely hope that this bill comes back next year and the year after until it is passed. Just because someone leads a different lifestyle does not mean they should be denied the rights and life experiences of everyone else.
Get rid of the Bible thumpers in our state politics and start being progressive like our country should be. Bigots have no place in making decisions in our society!
The institution of marriage is and has been for quite some time between to qualifying members of the opposite sex. You cannot call a same-sex union a marriage unless you redefine it and then it is no longer a marriage it is something else.
Qualifying? In what way… the only requirement these days is to be able to breathe and in this circumstance have tabs and slots that other people feel should only be organized in a particular way. Case in point: Would you qualify a male drug using ex con who does not have a job doing anything that is NOT illicit marrying his mentally ill girlfriend with three children from three fathers on state assistance for food, power and Medical care? And they can get a marriage in the state of Maryland without anyone breathing hard. But you would deny the right to marry to a same sex couple that may be both providers for their families, paying into the system that the aforementioned male/female loser couple exploits.
All individual states, territories and the DC have qualifications such as age, blood tests, ability to consent not to mention a restriction on bigamy and polygamy, etc…for a marriage to be sanctioned by the government.
But what is the compelling interest in that law. WHy should they care!
Mr. Cdev you are quite the dense one not to admit even to yourself that same-sex marriage would redefine traditional marriage and re-order society profoundly.
Duh, legalizing gay marriage will totally ruin all “traditional” marriages and destroy the fabric of our society!!!!!
/sarcasm
Seriously, I don’t even understand why people still try to argue against gay marriage. You’ll just end up being on the wrong side of history anyway.
You can say it as often as you like it does not make it a fact and I do not agree with your assessment. Again what is the compelling interest of the govt. in regulating who may excercise their religious belief to marry?
Cdev, I disagree with you, but it would seem this happens to you frequently so you’re likely used to it.
I would agree with you Don Ho(mophobe), but then we’d both be wrong.
Watcher at least you’re consistent and prove your stupidity one post at a time.
That is what makes this country so great, we can have differing opinions and disagree in freedom.
Social order is the compelling interest of government.
Government is not involved with ones religious beliefs.
SO you think govt should be involved in regulating marriages because of a social order in our society. Well since it seems that currently marriages as they are defined civilly are ending in divorce at an alarming rate one should consider the need for more regulation.
@CDEV. Your question was “what” is the compelling interest of government. Not whether I or anyone else agreed that government “should” be involved.
Government exists for the purpose of social order. Laws are created by government to promote the process of social order. Some laws pertain to married persons only. Thus the involvement of government regarding who will be recognized under the law to receive the benefits provided to married persons.
Government can’t prevent gays from loving one another, or making a commitment to one another for life. Government can’t prevent gays from living with one another just as married couples do. The only thing government can do is regulate who, under current law, receives the benefits accrued to married persons.
@Retiredawhile. Yes, Retiredawhile, you are spot on. However, we don’t see the gay/lesbian community fighting for the rights that would be afforded by state recognition of a civil union or domestic partnership (i.e. tax status, inheritance, living will issues, etc). No, they’re fighting for “marriage”. I personally don’t care if you marry a deck chair, but there is a large block of traditionalists who either find it offensive or feel it will lessen the sacredness of their own marriage, or whatever. Regardless, the fight is not for the benefits of a civil union, but for the capitulation of those traditionalists and acceptance that the lifestyle they’ve chosen is wholesome and moral – to everyone… as if acceptance could be mandated.
Retired I see your point however we have Don claiming it is a civil construct only and then Amazed illustrates it as the religious construct. The groups of opponents here are against it because in some respects they would be fine with it as long as you do not use the word marriage. The ironic thing is two gays can go to DC get married and it is valid in Maryland. Under state law and the US constitution’s full faith and credit clause!
@Cdev The homosexual couple in your example that married in DC, can they file a federal and MD State joint tax return using state law and the US constitution’s full faith and credit clause?
V
CDEV, I’m not illustrating anything as religious. I simply pointed out what I see as a source of resistance. Again, I don’t care if you marry your neighbor’s Pekingese but if the fight is for equality with regard to taxes, inheritance, living will, etc. then fight the fight that has a chance of getting you what you want… if that’s the goal.
@ Vlad they can in Maryland since our attorney General has indicated that Maryland will recognize marriage liscences from other states for the same reason. The Federal form and box for Marriage I am not sure however as the Constitutionalist will quickly point out that the Fed is not allowed to regulate marriage so it is a state right aand I would imagine the answer is yes. I know a few DC residents who have a same sex marriage and filed their tax returns in such a way and have not had a problem yet!
It is very annoying Cdev when you assume things or make them up and present them as fact.
A homosexual couple married in a state that allows same-sex marriage cannot file a federal tax return as married and I can find no evidence that allows a gay couple married in another state to file a joint Maryland State Tax Return.
I may be wrong, but it my understanding that the federal Defense Of Marriage Act, currently being challenged in federal court, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Until that changes, I don’t think you would be permitted to legally file a federal tax return claiming, married filing jointly.
While I am no lawyer this friend is. Idon’t believe he would do so unless he was permitted to. He is legally married in the District of Columbia. The federal govt does not have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage and the good faith and credit clause means his marriage in one state or DC is valid anywhere. When it was just Mass. it was not a big thing as only residents of Massachusets can get married there but when other states did not put the same restriction in it became a mute point.
BAHS STUDENT, Being on the right side or wrong side of history depends ultimately on who writes or re-writes it.
I recommend you read posts more carefully since no one here has said what you wrote “will totally ruin all “traditional” marriages and destroy the fabric of our society”.
However the progressive gay agenda is about normalizing homosexuality, forcing acceptance and re-ordering society.
My comments were aimed at the general argument that homophobes use to try to attack same-sex marriage, and “re-ordering society” is basically the same argument.
No one is forcing you to accept homosexuality, the issue is gay couples in Maryland would like to have the same rights as straight couples. You can sit in your corner and be bigoted as much as you like.
@BAHS I agree gay/lesbian couples deserve the same treatment as hetero couples. Unfortunately they’re tied up in a fight over the word “marriage” when they should be striving for a more easily achievable legally recognized civil union or domestic partnership or whatever it needs to be called and leave the “marriage” fight for later.
BAHS Student: Please explain to me what specific rights are being denied to homosexual couples. They can vote, are guaranteed fair trials, have free speech, can own property ( even together ), etc.
The *only* issue here is one of labeling. And labeling two people of the same sex as being married is no different than me claiming to be 6’6″. Saying it, even if the state agrees, doesn’t make it so.
The homosexual lobby is loosing some serious political capital here. Be gay all day long, and most people ( including myself ) just don’t care. Try to push the majority around though, and they might find that somewhat irritating.
The solution is absurdly simple. Eliminate governmentally sanctioned use of the term marriage. Whenever a couple, whether gay or straight, wants to unite, they would ALL file for a civil union license through the government to receive the same legal benefits. The term “marriage” carries weight for its religious association, so let’s stop using it in government and give the word to the churches. You get a civil union through the government, and the churches can decide whether or not to call it a “marriage.”
I’m with you 100%, but I still can’t figure out what legal benefits we’re talking about. Twice this week, I’ve asked pro-gay-marriage proponents what rights marrieds have that others don’t, and I haven’t gotten a single straight answer.
Totally agree with you, in wondering why we allow government to endorse or license any personal arrangements in the first place.
Joint Tax Returns
Insurance
Assumed Power of Attorney
That’s it?
Joint tax returns aren’t fair to singles either — they could be replaced with standardized returns more easily than solving the marriage debate. Insurance is a private contract, and carriers are relatively free to do as they please, especially regarding who they pay benefits to.
Finally, as far as I can tell ( and I’m thankfully *not* an attorney ), assumed power of attorney is *not* automatic or guaranteed for married folks, especially for assets in one name. Of course, this is probably a wildly complex topic. Point remains though: it’s not some magic privilege that heteros get and homos don’t.
I’m just not convinced that there are real injustices going on. Evidence still seems, to me, to be pointing to agendas, posturing, and campaigning for acceptance of gay marriage via legal dictate instead of directly convincing the public.
PS: Thank you for providing some sort of answer — that’s a welcome addition to the debate.
Spousal privelage in court!
When you go to the hospital with your wife who can not speak up for herself you are assumed to make medical decisions without her having adocument for that. Same is not true the other way.
@PB. I know what you mean in your question about married rights, however I feel it important to point out that married persons do not have anymore *rights* than single persons. Married persons have *legal benefits* that single persons do not have, as pointed out by CDEV, but there is a vast distinction between benefits and rights. You can not lose a right, but you could lose a benefit.
I agree but as Don Ho said that is not practicle. Why? he wont tell me.