Exit Spring

By every measure, this spring has been one for the ages. You have the Arab Spring whereby several Middle East and North African countries challenged their authoritarian old guard governments in the quest for freedom.

You have the Tornado Spring in which there had been record devastation in the wake of countless climate change-induced tornadoes in the South and Midwest.

You have the Flood Spring where the mighty Mississippi wreaked havoc on neighboring towns.

You have the Osama bin Laden Spring when public enemy Number 1 was effectively put to death by our courageous SEALS 6 team.

You had the Donald Spring where the annoying egotism of Donald Trump somehow managed to dominate the political scene.

And you also have the Exit Spring. Clearly, the departure of Oprah heads the list followed not that closely by the Maria Shriver exit in the wake of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s dalliances and the sad cancellation of TV’s Brothers & Sisters. And as in the case of every spring, you have the Washington Capitals exiting the playoffs in an early round.

Perhaps not as monumental but of concern to our local LGBT community, was its share of exits this spring. While the surprise resignation of long time executive director of the GLCCB, Craig Wiley, was significant especially with Pride right around the corner, the messy, soap opera-like dismissal/resignation of Equality Maryland’s executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets is still sending tremors among us.

And if that’s not enough, I, too, will be heading to the exit door after 26 months as Baltimore OUTloud’s managing editor. This resignation was as sudden as it was regrettable, but it was prompted by an unsolvable personal dispute with one of the publication’s owners. He shall remain nameless, and I will not discuss the details here.

I have turned the reins over to a very capable person, Dana LaRocca, whose column, “City Desk…A View from Mount Vernon,” has been a welcome and popular addition to our independent, award-winning newspaper. The paper’s co-publishers agreed to my recommendation, and she is the new managing editor.

Dana, who is a very good friend of mine, brings to this position years of experience in journalism. She is savvy, smart, and knows our community as well as anyone. But even more important, she cares deeply about our community and its issues, and that type of dedication is needed to be successful. Dana has been a tremendous booster for the paper and strongly believes that by being independent, it provides a critical voice for our readers.

I urge all of our writers, readers and advertisers to support Dana and the paper as it will continue to play an important role in presenting news and issues that affect our lives as LGBT folks. I have been working with Dana during this transition period, and I figure to write this column in the future.

My experience as editor has been challenging, fulfilling and enjoyable, and I owe it largely to everyone who has supported the paper and worked towards its success. I begin with the staff, and I am grateful for the support I received from the dedicated Mary Taylor (Sales Manager/Production), Anja Saine (webmaster), Bill Andriette (production director), Bill’s back-up Maria Nicolosi, talented Carol Baker (graphic artist, who also recently left to pursue further education in her field), Joe Velasquez who had succeeded Carol, and former distributors Jay Loane and Michael Serio.

Then there are the writers whose efforts are crucial to any successful publication. I cannot adequately express my appreciation for the loyalty and excellence of Gregg Shapiro, Chuck Duncan, and Deb Draisin whose contributions to our Lively Arts section made it one of the best there is.

Others also played important roles in providing excellent material for our readers (in no particular order): Dr. Eva Hersh (deserves special kudos), Dana LaRocca, David Placher, Jay Loane, Josh Aterovis, Jonathan Hernandez, Marty Hoegg, Wayne Curtis, Gerry Fisher, Rev. Meredith Moise, Woody Derricks, Mark Patro, Shawn Bradley, Sandy Rawls, Larry Walker, Colin Riley, Jessica Lemmo, Jesse Benson, Terrence Brower, Jeffrey Clagett, Nicole Bettis, Vann Mills, Bill Palmer, Jeffrey Clouser, Sam Kunz and the always dependable Rodney Burger.

These individuals are like family and made my job easier. Some have moved on to other priorities in their lives; others hopefully will remain with us.

A special nod goes to Bruce Garrett, whose outstanding political cartoons appeared in every single issue except one over a two-year period, giving our paper the uniqueness among LGBT publications of having our own in-house cartoonist. Bruce also did excellent work for the paper in the area of photography as did Skip Koritzer, Justin Nixon and most recently Jay W.

This has been a significant journey for me, and I don’t regret one minute of it. My work as editor and reporter for the paper has taken me to places and people I never imagined meeting, and I feel enriched by the experience.

Aside from the OUTloud family, I had been privileged to make innumerable contacts in and around the Baltimore area. As an example, I recently had the pleasure of meeting Maggie Beetz, the charming new editor of Gay Life whom I consider a colleague and friend rather than a competitor.

Organization leaders, elected officials, business people, other media representatives, publicists, etc. have added to and strengthened my journalism world and my life. I thank them for their work and their valuable contributions as sources and newsmakers.

In wrapping up this Exit Spring, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Jim Becker, my dear friend of over three decades and co-publisher of Baltimore OUTloud, for the opportunity to serve the LGBT community in this capacity.

And above everything else, I thank my husband Bob Ford for his loyalty, patience and support. Investing this much time and effort into an endeavor such as this can truly test a relationship. But love, as they say, conquers all. Thank you, Bob, for the love, sacrifice and understanding throughout this period of our lives. I am once again all yours.

The Puck Starts Here

Washington Capitals fans are in the all-too familiar position of witnessing our beloved team being eliminated from the Stanley Cup playoffs. But unexpected news during this playoff season has diverted our attention away from the disappointment with the Caps to the quest for marriage equality, particularly in New York State.

Sean Avery, a left wing (hockey position) in his fifth season with the New York Rangers has come out for marriage equality. Avery, a straight, fashion-conscious 31 year-old, has partnered with the Human Rights Campaign to appear in a video for its “New Yorkers for Marriage Equality” campaign. It can be viewed here .

"Sean Avery knows what it means to be a leader - on and off the ice,” said HRC Senior New York Strategist Brian Ellner. “As the first professional athlete in the state to publically support marriage equality, his voice is sure to resonate. Like a majority of New Yorkers, he believes in the freedom of all loving, committed couples to marry."

Sean Avery, however, is one of the most reviled players in the National Hockey League by his peers. He is known as an agitator on the ice whose primary mission is to get under the skin of the opponents. Avery has made some off-color comments that netted him a lengthy suspension, and he has twice led the league in penalty minutes. Fans of other teams despise him even more.

So when a bespectacled Avery, a Canadian, states in the 30-second video, “I treat everyone the way I expect to be treated, and that applies to marriage,” eyebrows were raised. Cynics could rightfully ask, “What does he have to lose? He’s hated anyway.” In the video Avery adds, "Committed couples should be able to marry the person they love. Join me in supporting marriage equality."

In a phone interview with the New York Times, Avery explained, "The places I've played and lived the longest have been in West Hollywood, Calif., when I played for the Los Angeles Kings, and when I moved to New York, I lived in Chelsea for the first four years. I certainly have been surrounded by the gay community. And living in New York and when you live in L.A., you certainly have a lot of gay friends."

Sure, it would be great if some iconic, transcendent figure in the world of professional sports could be a spokesperson for LGBT equality rather than one with a negative image. Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Emmett Smith and Cal Ripken, Jr.—widely popular figures—would have more influence, to be sure, as they are heroes and role models. But we must take what we can get in this macho-obsessed, testosterone-laden industry, and Sean Avery should receive applause for this courageous step. [Note that Baltimore Ravens’ Brendan Ayanbadejo spoke out for marriage equality in the Huffington Post and is working with Equality Maryland to advance the cause.]

But in this case, it was the message (marriage equality) that resonated and not necessarily the messenger (Avery). When Todd Reynolds, vice-president of Uptown Hockey, a management group (agent), tweeted that he was “very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender ‘marriage’. Legal or not, it will always be wrong,” hockey fans rallied to Avery’s defense in droves.

Reynolds went on to clarify in subsequent tweets that his comments did not reflect hatred, bigotry or intolerance towards gays; he just believes in the sanctity of marriage. The controversy continued, nonetheless. Canadian sports reporter, Damian Goddard, was fired for his tweet-based support of Reynolds.

I’ve always believed that if a current gay male professional athlete were to come out, hockey would be the most likely sport. There is a higher percentage of Europeans and Canadians in the National Hockey League than any of the other three major pro sports leagues in the U.S. As such, there would probably be less gay hang-ups among players with those backgrounds.

Then you also have the cities where NHL games are played: New York, Montreal, Washington, Toronto, Vancouver, Boston, Atlanta, South Florida, LA, Chicago, etc.— hotbeds for LGBT folks. Public reaction and team management would likely be supportive.

I spoke with a former Washington Capitals player, who is Canadian, and asked him if the NHL would accept an openly gay player. He said that “the players would do the politically correct thing” at least in public. That’s promising.

When Brendan Burke, 21, a former hockey goalie and student manager of the Miami (Ohio) University ice hockey team and son of the NHL’s Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke came out as gay in November 2009, there was also a flood of international support by news outlets and fans. Brendan advocated tolerance and spoke out against homophobia in professional sports.

His father, who was also the GM for the U.S. Olympic men’s hockey team in Vancouver, issued a statement: “I had a million good reasons to love and admire Brendan. This news didn’t alter any of them… There are gay men in professional hockey. We would be fools to think otherwise. And it’s sad that they feel the need to conceal this. I understand why they do so, however… Since he wishes to blaze this trail, I stand beside him with an axe! I simply could not be more proud of Brendan than I am, and I love him as much as I admire him.” Tragically, young Brendan Burke was killed in a car accident two months later.

Brendan and Brian Burke, Sean Avery, Brendan Ayanbadejo (and most recently Donte Stallworth of the Ravens), the NBA’s Grant Hill, Jared Dudley, and former NBA star Charles Barkley and others deserve a standing ‘O’ for what they have done for gay rights. And other allies like former U. of Maryland wrestler Hudson Taylor, whose organization Athlete Ally is challenging homophobia in sports, will help make gay athletes more likely to come out and advance equality in the process.

www.stevecharing.blogspot.com

Equality Maryland at the Crossroads

April had not been a kind month for Equality Maryland, the state’s largest LGBT rights organization. The two signature legislative issues managed by Equality Maryland—marriage equality and gender identity protections—did not succeed in the 2011 General Assembly although the environment was ripe for passage for at least one.

Following each defeat (the bills were actually recommitted to committee instead of an up-and-down vote being taken in the second chamber) finger-pointing ran amok. Strategies and leadership were called into question, especially after the Civil Marriage Protection Act failed to advance in the House of Delegates although it sailed through the Senate.

Outside organizations (national partners, such as Human Rights Campaign, Gill Action and Freedom to Marry) were accused by many in the community of pushing the ultimate decision to recommit the bills, and Equality Maryland was blamed for allowing these organizations to maintain that degree of influence in what had been deemed by many as a local matter.

As to the gender identity bill, the trans-community was divided over the removal of “public accommodations” from the legislation to overcome a potential obstacle in the vote. The fury on both sides was intense and became personal. Many who were upset that the public accommodations component was stripped from the bill worked to defeat it. Although Delegate Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk, the sponsor of the bill, had made that strategic decision, Equality Maryland drew much of the ire as they backed the delegate.

The controversial firing of the organization’s executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets also in April by the Equality Maryland Board did not help repair the public relations stain that had begun to envelop the organization. This was amplified by the resignation by Matt Thorn, the newly appointed Director of Development (fundraising), in protest.

The Board’s clumsy denial that Meneses-Sheets was actually fired was not productive as she had stated that it was not her decision to leave. There needed to be clarity and consistency in what had transpired, not contradiction.

And the appearance of a “gag order” to prevent Meneses-Sheets from talking to the media also fosters suspicion. When an organization reaches out to a community and asks for donations and volunteers, there should be transparency and accountability. Shunning the media or keeping things secretive only serves to erode confidence.

Many assumed that the firing of Menses-Sheets resulted from the failure to enact one or both of these critical bills. People even drew the sports analogy that when a team fails to deliver, the ownership usually axes the coach or manager. So it didn’t come as a major surprise that this action was taken.

However, according to a credible source familiar with Equality Maryland who spoke to Baltimore OUTloud on the condition of anonymity, the decision to terminate Meneses-Sheets was made as early as January. Even if these bills had passed, the Board was still going to dismiss Meneses-Sheets following the 90-day General Assembly.

There had been pressure placed on the Board by a number of lawmakers to remove her. It was a “communications” problem that, in part, led to the decision. Legislators believed she was too public by disclosing sensitive strategy while the Board was upset that she did not consult with them before she took a variety of actions or made statements.

This same source indicated that the role of the national partners during the last legislative session was troubling. “HRC and Gill Action seemed to play off each other. HRC saw this as a fundraising opportunity and each organization wanted to claim credit had there been a victory.”

Equality Maryland’s use of national partners has been questioned given that many believe that only local advocates would be more effective. The collaboration with these organizations gave the appearance that they were actually running the show. That perception further weakened Equality Maryland’s standing with some parts of the community.

Moreover, there is speculation that a new advocacy group will emerge to lead the marriage fight and a different organization will step forward to advance gender identity protections.

As April was mercifully coming to a close, Equality Maryland stood at the crossroads between becoming an effective state-based force in advancing LGBT rights or being perceived as irrelevant.

Only a week following the departure of Morgan Meneses-Sheets, the Board announced the selection of Lynne Bowman, a founder of Equality Ohio, to serve as the Interim Executive Director. She also served as the Director of Programs and Services for the Equality Federation, the national association of state-based LGBT organizations and possesses over two decades of experience in holding myriad leadership positions.

From all that can be gathered by reading posts on blogs, this is a very popular choice. I had the opportunity to speak with Lynne Bowman on the phone, and she impressed me as determined, and knowledgeable.

Her first order of business is to “stabilize” the organization from within and repair the public relations mishaps that beset the organization particularly over the course of the past month. Bowman’s guiding hand will be required to reassure a skeptical LGBT community.

This is crucial for the survival of Equality Maryland. Unless confidence is restored, much needed fundraising would not be accomplished and its impact on legislation would be reduced.

I still maintain that Equality Maryland has the infrastructure in place and the necessary contacts to overcome the disappointments of 2011. With Lynne Bowman at the helm, at least for the next four months, and if the LGBT community and allies get behind the organization, the ship can be righted. This is imperative because as of now, Equality Maryland is at the crossroads.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com

A Blueprint for Achieving Marriage Equality in 2012

Winning a Referendum

We are a long way off from a referendum—both in terms of time and also in what needs to be accomplished before that eventuality. Of course, if the Civil Marriage Protection Act is not signed into law, there will be no referendum. There is no guarantee that it will be brought up again, and there is no guarantee we hold onto existing support or change the minds of a few.

And also keep in mind that at no time in our history has marriage equality been won at the ballot box, no matter how blue or progressive a state may be. We are, in terms of numbers, a small minority, nationally and in Maryland. Even with family members, co-workers, neighbors, friends and other allies supporting our cause, we are greatly outnumbered.

Moreover, the opposition who is invariably well-funded, well-organized, and well-motivated has a history of success in places like California and Maine. We are clearly the Davids among the Goliaths and our challenge will be daunting to say the least.

But we can overcome the odds.

The main thing is for our community to come together. Many gays and lesbians do not see the marriage issue as one where they feel they should donate money or help in any way. They are single and don’t think of themselves as ever going to be married or they are coupled and also don’t see nuptials in their future.

But none of that matters. When the opposition machine cranks up, the lies emanating from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a bevy of religious organizations will be breathtaking. They will use money—lots of it—from outside of Maryland to smear us as a community.

Every stereotype, every exaggeration, every unverified claim, and every scare tactic will be thrown into the barrage of commercials, robocalls and mailings to sway otherwise fair-minded citizens of the state that we are immoral, filthy slime who will teach kids to be gay and ruin society.

Even if you don’t contemplate marriage, every one of these lies and attacks are directed to you as well. You have to consider: do you like being relegated to second-class citizenship status and stomped on? If so, then you probably won’t be interested in reading on.

But if you do have dignity, pride and a feeling of self-worth and would be personally offended by the absurd characterizations that will befall us, then you are in this with the thousands of Maryland gay and lesbian couples who would be denied marriage rights should a referendum to overturn the law establishing marriage equality is successful. For every insult hurled at us, you should and must take them personally and react accordingly.

We need everyone in the LGBT community to help combat the lies. It will take a lot of money, to be sure. We must enlist the fundraising expertise and infrastructure from national LGBT organizations. We must bolster Equality Maryland’s efforts to raise money and to help as volunteers.

It won’t be just a simple task of stuffing envelopes. There will be a great need for grass roots activism—the only way we can win this fight. Door knocking, phone banking, lit drops, town hall meetings will be required—just like a political campaign because that’s exactly what it is.

Equality Maryland deserves the right to lead the effort. They should not go at alone but they should be the lead. If other organizations and entities try to compete for the spotlight and trample all over each other, the effort will fail, just like in California.

Equality Maryland will, however, have a lot of work to do. And they need to start planning for a referendum battle NOW—not wait until the bill is signed into law. Fundraising strategies, town hall meetings in as many districts as possible, setting up an infrastructure for phone banking, designing fliers and mailers and other necessities must begin right away.

Equality Maryland is a small organization with a handful of staff and volunteers. It needs to beef up its donor base and attract even more volunteers.

The organization will have to seek national partners and build coalitions with progressive organizations like labor unions, particularly government unions who have money and people. They should also enlist the help of supportive elected officials to execute a grass roots effort district by district.

It would be great if the GLCCB steps up and partners with Equality Maryland to offer space for phone banking and provide other resources including mailing lists to attract contributions. The GLCCB should also allow Pride to be used as a means to energize the community and allow speakers to share with the stage with the entertainers, if only for a few minutes, to rally the masses.

The referendum, if one takes place, must be viewed as a war because if it fails there is no telling what the eventual outcome will be for marriage equality in Maryland. Therefore, it should be approached with the greatest degree of seriousness and be fought like it’s the last battle.

And we must all be soldiers in that battle whether you envision being married or not.

A Blueprint for Marriage Equality in 2012

Winning Over the Legislature

By Steve Charing

Following the near-miss of achieving marriage equality in the 2011 Maryland General Assembly, many gays and lesbians were left heartbroken, angry and frustrated. It was a disappointment, to be sure, but there is no reason why we cannot succeed in 2012 if the entire LGBT community and allies get on board. We have the benefit of a year’s time to regroup, collect our thoughts and execute a winning game plan.

Keep in mind, however, that although House Speaker Michael Busch indicated he would bring up the Civil Marriage Protection Act in 2012, there is no guarantee that he will. Therefore, it is imperative that he be convinced there are sufficient votes for passage.

The following represents my ideas on how we can secure the necessary votes in the House of Delegates and hold on to the Senate’s support.

Keep it local

While national groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign and Gill Action were gracious to help Equality Maryland with the efforts in the legislature in 2011, I would prefer that their resources, reach and fundraising capabilities be applied to a referendum battle should one transpire. For our work in the legislature, it is best that Equality Maryland, with the support of the LGBT community and a professional lobbying firm, convince wavering and/or persuadable lawmakers to gain the necessary votes.

The national groups, many believe, played an influential role in the controversial decision this year to commit the marriage bill to committee, which left a bitter taste in the mouths of pro-marriage activists. This unfortunately eroded the confidence in Equality Maryland, and that damage needs to be repaired.

We must encourage Equality Maryland to lead the fight as they are in the best position to understand the idiosyncrasies of the individual legislators and their constituents. And as a community, we must stand behind the organization and offer support as needed.

Winning over non-supportive African-Americans

Maryland is a state with one of the highest percentage of African-Americans in the country. And during the 2012 election with President Obama will be on the ballot, a greater turnout of these voters is expected—a situation that is crucial during a referendum.

Clearly, the failure to move the marriage bill through the House this session was in part due to the opposition of several Democratic delegates who were influenced by church-going African-American constituents. This group has been traditionally opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Securing the votes from those delegates would likely have been the difference between winning and losing.

Therefore, a major educational effort needs to be undertaken. Allies, such as the Maryland Black Family Alliance who have done great work on our behalf, would be helpful in that regard.

Equality Maryland should also solicit the assistance of supportive delegates and senators especially in predominantly African-American districts in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. Perhaps town hall meetings held jointly by these elected officials and Equality Maryland could go a long way in allaying fears about marriage equality.

Of course, this could present a challenge in obtaining the assistance of these politicians, but you can be sure that homophobic delegates Emmett Burns and Don Dwyer will be working with NOM and other anti-gay organizations to ensure a defeat.

Also, our efforts to line up votes should focus on Democrats. Virtually all Republican lawmakers in this state are against marriage equality. Sen. Allan Kittleman is an exception as he is the only member of the GOP caucus capable of thinking for himself to support what he knows is right. Let’s not waste time and resources beating a dead elephant.

Words are important

There is no question in my mind that marriage for same-sex couples is a civil right. But many African-Americans don’t buy into that concept, and it may be hurting us.

Although leading civil rights icons, such as Rep. John Lewis, Julian Bond and the late Coretta Scott King have equated marriage equality as a civil right, it appears that a large number of African-Americans brush off that idea and listen more to their pastors.

I believe we should frame this struggle as one of “equal rights” where we won’t have to engage in a distracting side argument on the definition of “civil rights”. But we should not retreat on the word “marriage”. Naming it anything else opens up the separate but equal doctrine, which is unacceptable in this movement.

Ideas are important too

Equality Maryland and its board members should welcome strategic ideas from the broader community. Large open meetings would likely be unruly, difficult to manage and nonproductive. Instead, Equality Maryland should schedule smaller meetings in the months ahead with community leaders in business and media as well as other local advocacy organizations that have succeeded in advancing equality at the grass roots level. There should be a free exchange of ideas to determine the most effective way of reaching out to targeted constituency groups and to help formulate a broad strategy for raising large sums of needed money to succeed in a referendum battle.

MD Marriage Mess: Looking Back to Move Forward

Every football coach in America scrutinizes the video of the previous game to identify errors in strategy and execution. They learn from these mistakes so that they can implement the necessary changes and go out and win the next game.

In the case of the failed Civil Marriage Protection Act during the 2011 Maryland General Assembly, it was not a game. But it merited a review of the action nonetheless. Thousands of gay and lesbian couples throughout the state were denied the rights, benefits and responsibilities that opposite sex couples receive because there were insufficient votes in the House of Delegates to push the legislation to the Governor’s desk.

Instead, a voice vote to recommit the bill to committee without an actual floor vote took place. This was the decision by the bill’s proponents and House leadership. It prevented a certain defeat on the floor but left the community in the dark as to who supported us and who were against us. The hopes of these couples ended abruptly with a thud.

Accordingly, there was not just heartbreak, but also bitter disappointment and palpable anger. Fingers were pointed at all parties involved. While the targets of the blame game are understandably upset over the recriminations, many in the community who were stunned by this legislative maneuver were equally distressed.

All involved in this debacle are looking at the footage—not simply to point fingers but hopefully to make some changes in the game plan.

For Maryland’s gay and lesbian community there was enormous, unprecedented sanguinity heading into this horrible day on March 11. The reasons for the optimism were numerous:

· We have heard and read the mantra that we are on the cusp of marriage equality.

· Attorney General Douglas Gansler issued a landmark opinion last year suggesting that the state should recognize the valid same-sex nuptials conducted in other jurisdictions.

· Just over a year ago, Washington D.C. legalized marriages for same-sex couples, which sent a message (one would hope) to all elected officials in Maryland that crucial dollars involved in the wedding industry would be leaving the state.

· Recent polls had shown a positive trend towards acceptance of same-sex marriage.

· We have a supportive Governor, if not aggressively so, who pledged to sign marriage equality legislation.

· We had eight LGBT members in the legislature—one of, if not the highest total in the U.S.

· The construction of the critical Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee had for the first time a number of supporters that would likely move the bill to the floor for debate and vote.

· Even Senate President Mike Miller, an opponent of same-sex marriage, announced he would vote against a potential filibuster.

· The committee sent the bill to the Senate, and it sailed through without much fuss. A one-time opponent to marriage equality, Sen. James Brochin, switched sides after hearing disgusting testimony from the opposition.

· Then Republican Minority Leader, Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, courageously sacrificed his position to support marriage equality.

· Several “celebrations” were held by Equality Maryland after the Senate passage that led some in the community to believe a House victory was attainable, if not expected.

· The House was widely considered the less conservative of the two chambers.

·The villainous National Organization for Marriage with their $1 million war chest to reward Democrats opposing the legislation saw the inevitability of the measure being passed and began gearing up for the likely referendum battle ahead.

· Despite the shenanigans from wavering delegates on the House Judiciary Committee, the bill moved to the floor with the help of the anti- marriage equality committee chairman.

Yes, the stars were aligned, and Maryland was poised to be the sixth state and D.C. to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. And the entire country was watching.

But the horror of March 11 left a bitter taste in all of our mouths. Equality Maryland, the state’s principal LGBT civil rights organization who took on the fight, received its fair share of flak. Others included: fickle legislators who had signed up as co-sponsors but backtracked; Gov. O’Malley for not being proactive and effective; outside LGBT rights organizations and House leadership for ostensibly advocating sending the bill back to committee without a vote; the lack of activism on the part of the larger gay and lesbian community; and the influence of religious organizations and pastors that had an impact on some freshman and even veteran delegates.

Equality Maryland, in particular, became an easy target, mainly because their visibility during legislative struggles, past and present. Community members demanded an explanation of the recommitment to committee tactic, and such an elucidation had not yet been made public.

Suspicion mounted that the decision was made to prevent a clear defeat, which would impact the marriage efforts in Rhode Island in New York and that the national groups—Gill Action, HRC and Freedom to Marry—dictated the strategy. Moreover, there was a good bit of controversy surrounding Equality Maryland’s removal of Facebook posts that were critical to the organization’s strategy and decision.

But before the wolves circle and devour their prey, keep in mind that marriage equality never advanced this far before in Maryland. There was a deficit of only a few votes that prevented it from becoming a reality. Equality Maryland cannot be responsible for that shortfall; they, like everyone else, were blindsided by the backtracking of positions, especially from bill co-sponsors.

There were probably some missteps along the way. It would be helpful if Equality Maryland acknowledges them publicly so that we may move on. We have seen the film and now we must devise a game plan for the future.

The quandary is that there is no guarantee that the bill will see the light of day next year. Legislators are loath to take on controversial matters two years in a row. House Speaker Michael Busch promised to bring it up next session, but that’s where the bill would originate. The Senate will only act on it if it passes the House.

If the bill does not advance next year, we can forget it until 2015 because of election politics. And if a referendum occurs, any chance of marriage equality would not take place until 2016—five years down the road.

So it behooves all of us to file the footage of this loss and start a game plan for 2012. In the next issue I will present my ideas on how we can achieve marriage equality once and for all.

Punting Equality to the People

Following questioning by reporters on March 2, Governor Martin O’Malley received plaudits from Equality Maryland folks and other marriage equality advocates for his urging the House of Delegates to get on with the Civil Marriage Protection Bill (“Religious Freedom” was unfortunately dropped from the title in the final Senate version). After the hemming and hawing by several delegates, who were co-sponsors no less, the Governor seemed to have had enough of this issue, which unlike in previous years is dominating the 2011 General Assembly.

"I hope the House comes together and passes this bill," O'Malley said.

A perfect time it was for the Governor to show some leadership on the controversial measure, who up until now has been reluctant to get out in front of the cameras to actually advocate for passage. Better late than never, I suppose. So three cheers for Governor O’Malley!

But moments later, O’Malley, who had pledged to sign the bill into law if voted by the legislature, acknowledged that even if the General Assembly approves the bill, voters will likely decide its fate because it can be petitioned to a referendum that would appear on the 2012 ballot. "We should let the people decide," he said. Ouch!

One respected Equality Maryland board member, upon learning of the added comment wrote on Facebook, “He always finds a way to disappoint.”

And O’Malley is not alone in his idea that the people should decide. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, an opponent of marriage for same-sex couples or even civil unions for that matter, cleared the way for a debate and vote in the Senate by constructing the crucial Judicial Proceedings Committee (JPR) in such a way that there were sufficient supporters of the measure to vote it out of committee and onto the floor. He even pledged to end a filibuster but would vote against the bill.

Why would Miller allow the bill—one to which he is firmly opposed—to finally see the light of day? He could have easily stacked the JPR with opponents to kill it once again. Some speculate that the time is right for Maryland to finally deal with the issue once and for all.

Miller had been accused of encouraging the JPR to keep the bill from moving to the floor because he does not like another contentious issue to have to be debated. More likely he reasoned that since the Governor said he would support the measure the legislature may as well take up the issue and as O’Malley said, leave it up to the people to decide.

Wavering delegates on the House Judiciary Committee have indicated, as of this writing, they would eventually vote for the bill and ultimately on the floor. The slim 12-10 victory in the committee on March 4 that enabled the full House to consider the bill came after several lawmakers backtracked from their original co-sponsorship to a position where they had to give it more thought, pray, grandstand for legislation unrelated to the marriage bill or other reasons for not immediately committing to the bill.

Freshman Delegate Same Arora (D-Montgomery) had been aided in his election bid largely by LGBT activists and donors specifically for his pro-marriage equality stance. Then he held the committee vote up while he grappled with second thoughts and vigorous pressure from the likes of the Maryland Catholic Conference and the National Organization for Marriage. Arora endured intense pressure from his constituents who pointedly reminded him of his original position. [See Bruce Garrett's cartoon]

After he finally decided that he would vote for the measure, Arora said, “On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate." In the end, Committee Chair, Joseph F. Vallario Jr., an opponent of marriage equality, cast the decisive 12th vote—not so much that he flip-flopped but because again, the people should decide.

I call that “punting.” This is where politicians do not want to take a courageous stand on a controversial issue and instead let others decide. Should the House go on to pass the bill and O’Malley signs it, the people through the referendum process will make their decision at the ballot box and the politicians will not have to bear the heat from constituents regardless of the outcome. Instead, they are supporting the horrendous notion that the rights of a minority should be at the mercy of the will of the majority.

Those opponents of marriage for same-sex couples who will have voted for the bill or those, such as Mike Miller who had eased the way for its consideration in the legislature, had done so because they believe that the referendum to overturn the law will be approved by the voters in 2012.

In the coming weeks, I will present the challenges of the referendum should the House of Delegates go on to approve the Civil Marriage Protection Act. I will outline what I believe will be the reasons why it is an uphill battle and also point out how we as a community can overcome those challenges.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down

By Steve Charing

There is so much stuff going on in the political arena I feel like I’m all thumbs. Clearly there are good things happening, but others not so good. What else is new? To highlight some of these, I will give my thumbs up or down on the latest news affecting our community.

Thumbs Up: Let’s start with Sen. James Brochin (Baltimore County) of the Judicial Proceedings Committee. He heard testimony from over a hundred supporters and opponents of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act on February 8. Although he had been opposed to marriage for same-sex couples and preferred civil unions, he did an about face and came out for full marriage equality. Why? Because the arguments presented by the opponents were mean-spirited, hateful and b.s. He had enough. They are their own worst enemy.

Thumbs Down: The Senate through the amendment process on February 23 stripped the words “Religious Freedom” from the name of the bill to the “Civil Marriage Protection Act.” This was as a result of a suggestion from Senator Anthony Muse (D-Prince George’s), a consistent opponent of marriage equality. The consequence of this change is that when the inevitable referendum takes place, the revised name of the bill will hide the fact that the bill contains religious protections, which would have perhaps mitigated some opponents’ ire.

Thumbs Up: Lobby Day on February 14 went well, benefitting from unseasonably mild weather and the buzz over the real possibility of significant legislation being passed this year. A large enthusiastic crowd attended the rally, which was well organized, and coupled with the face-to-face lobbying, hopefully effective.

Thumbs Down: Although there was a good group of speakers including lead sponsors of the two signature legislative initiatives and former Equality Maryland head Dan Furmansky, there was no strong headliner to draw even more people and really stoke the crowd. In the past Judy Shepard and Bishop Eugene Robinson were welcome additions to the Lobby Day podium.

Attorney General Gansler spoke, but conspicuously absent was Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown who many are penciling in as Gansler’s primary opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial race. Brown had recently offered his public support for the marriage bill. And Gov. O’Malley would have also been an ideal headliner. What a statement that would have made. Did Equality Maryland invite these officials?

Thumbs Up: The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted 7-4 on February 17 to move the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act forward. It marked the first time the bill made it out of committee and onto the Senate floor for a debate and vote unless there is a filibuster. The November elections and a restructuring of the committee to include more supporters greatly improved the chances. If it passes in the Senate, it moves to the House, which is expected to go our way.

Thumbs Down: The controversy surrounding the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act (see front page story) has drawn passion from both sides—those who oppose the current legislation because it does not include “public accommodations” and those who want to get something passed this year even without that provision. Some have even suggested that more emphasis has been placed on the marriage bill at the expense of the gender identity measure and others reject that notion wholeheartedly. Regardless of how one stands, the discourse, for the most part, has been ugly and personal at a time our community needs to unite—all of us—LGB and T.

Thumbs Up: The B’more Proud LGBTIA Leadership Summit held on February 12 at Hopkins was a huge success (see front page story). Logistically, it could not have run better, so kudos to the committee and organizers for doing a great job.

But more importantly, it was gratifying to see nearly 300 college students from the Baltimore-DC area come together and get involved. As polls continue to show, the younger generation will help win LGBT equality as they replace the older and more conservative voters. Observing the passion and interest and their eagerness to learn about important issues justifies my optimism.

Thumbs Up: A not well-known fact is the advocacy work of the Columbia/Howard County chapter of PFLAG. What do the following three senators in Howard County have in common? Sen. Jim Robey (a former cop), Sen. Ed Kasemeyer (who besides Howard he represents a blue collar conservative constituency in Baltimore County) and Sen. Allan Kittleman (a Republican) all opposed marriage equality at some point. Now all three are planning to vote for the bill on the Senate floor.

Representatives from the PFLAG chapter doggedly met with these senators as well as county delegates (except for anti-gay Gail Bates and Warren Miller who refused meetings) over the years. Chapter members told their stories in an effort to convince concerned legislators. It has paid off, and now all three are on board.

Thumbs Down: While this is not local and not directly affecting the LGBT community, a thumbs down to Wisconsin governor Scott Walker for his union-busting tactics. It’s a cynical attempt to weaken unions so they cannot help Democrats in future elections. Keep in mind unions have traditionally been a reliable supporter of LGBT rights.

Thumbs Down: Entertainer Justin Bieber for his comment in Rolling Stone about his views on being gay. “It's everyone's own decision to do that,” declaring that it is a choice. Um, no! Better that he listen to Lady Gaga who said, “There are some people in this world that believe being gay is a choice. It’s not a choice, we’re born this way.”

But the Biebs earned a Thumbs Up when he went on to say, “It doesn't affect me and shouldn't affect anyone else.”

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

Confusing Marriage, Matrimony Muddles Same-Sex Debate

Letter Published in the Feb. 17 Edition of Howard County Times:

I want to thank Doug Miller’s support for marriage equality and join in his well-deserved praise for the courage exhibited by Sen. Allan H. Kittleman as he declared that same-sex couples should be treated equal to those of opposite-sex married couples ( “Kittleman isn’t on the wrong side of the aisle, but on the right side of history,” February 10).

Equality is one of the cornerstones of our nation (‘all men are created equal’); it is not a Republican or Democratic concept, but sadly with respect to marriage for same-sex couples, it largely is. Sen. Kittleman clearly put his principles and his natural instincts for civil rights before party politics.

However I disagree with Mr. Miller’s assertion that “marriage itself is an institution of religion, an article of faith. As such, it should be hands-off as far as the government is concerned.” I believe that many opponents of marriage equality, and even supporters such as Mr. Miller and Sen. Kittleman conflate the terms “marriage” and “matrimony.”

The fact is that marriage is sanctioned by government by the execution of a signed marriage license. The benefits, rights and responsibilities conferred upon married couples stem from the state government. What needs to be acknowledged is that a significant number of people choose to marry in courthouses, town clerk’s offices and at city halls whose ceremonies are officiated by a secular justice of the peace in most of these cases.

Religious institutions—churches, synagogues and mosques—also conduct these ceremonies, but the term used for the faith-based services should be matrimony, not marriage. For example, atheists are permitted to marry, and accordingly, are recognized by society and the state government as married even though the union wasn’t blessed and officiated by a member of the clergy.

Those advocating for marriage for same-sex couples support a bill currently being considered in the Maryland legislature that provides the right for religious institutions to refuse to marry same-sex couples. What marriage equality advocates are seeking is civil marriage—a standing whereby society recognizes the couple as married and one which entitles the couples to the benefits and rights provided by the state that opposite-sex married couples routinely receive.

As Sen. Kittleman said, “Our government is not a theocracy.” And that is my point.

Steve Charing

Clarksville