From Delegate Kathy Szeliga:
Referendum Update: Gay Marriage
Last night, the Maryland Senate passed the Gay Marriage Bill 25-22. It will now go to the Governor for his signature. I understand he will sign the gay marriage bill on March 1st. However, the law will not take affect until after we have an opportunity to petition the measure to the ballot.
Regardless of your position on this issue, it is important for the citizens of Maryland to have a voice and vote on this piece of legislation. I am proud to be working in conjunction with my colleagues to bring Same Sex Marriage to referendum and ultimately get it on the ballot for the November 6th 2012 election.
Petitioning a bill/law to the ballot is a lengthy and hard process but I am confident that we can obtain enough signatures to put this issue on the ballot. Rest assured I will e-mail you with how to get involved, volunteer and how you can sign the petition.
I will update you about this process as more details become available, please check https://mdpetitions.com/in the meantime.
Every Marylander deserves to have a voice on this important issue.
SIGN THE BALLOT REFERENDUM PETITION (coming soon)
VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6TH
Mortgage Interest
This measure proposed by O’Malley-Brown will phase out your mortgage interest deduction on your income taxes for single people making $100K and $150K for a couple. This tax policy would absolutely affect sales of homes as potential buyers calculate what they can afford.
I am outraged that the governor wants to increase taxes on the “new rich” or “thousandaires.” This is just another tax on Maryland families, estimates are that this would increase taxes for 20% of Marylanders, but I think this estimate is low. Maryland ranks as one of the wealthiest states in the country. Even the President said in his State of The Union speech that taxes should not increase on those who make under $250K per year.
If O’Malley-Brown wants to raise taxes on income, they should propose to change the income tax rates not sneak it in through the back door by reducing deductions and exemptions on income taxes.
Some have suggested raising the income limit to $250K. I am opposed to that too. This is just bad tax policy and will just make our tax system more complicated. It’s time to simply our tax system, not make it more convoluted.
You can count on me to work to defeat this new tax.
Boat Fees on the Rise
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has proposed an increase in boat registration fees (HB1307). As presented this bill would increase boat registration fees by HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS per boat.
Currently a 2-year registration costs $24. However, this bill seeks to increase that fee based on the size of the boat. Boats up to 32 feet will pay $125 for a two-year registration while vessels greater than 65 feet will pay $700!
This change would make Maryland much more expensive than Delaware, where the largest boats cost $60 a year and Virginia, where a three-year registration fee maxes out at $45.
As the home of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland has a lot to offer the nearly 200,000 boaters who live here. We have an entire industry in Maryland that revolves around boating – mostly small family owned operations. This is yet another tax policy that makes Maryland uncompetitive with surrounding states and also hurts small businesses. I am opposed to this huge fee increase.
In Baltimore and Harford Counties, we have hundreds of miles of shoreline. We have many marinas and scores of boaters that enjoy the Bowleys Quarters/Middle River/Essex/Joppa areas – my legisaltive district.
Baltimore County Marine Trades Association publishes a great waterfront guide and offers information about all the businesses and services along the Baltimore County waterfront – you can access it here:
Marine Trades Association of Baltimore County Waterfront Guide
COMMUNITY INTEREST:
Planning to Garden this Spring?
Check out the University of Maryland Extension programs to help make the most out of your spring, summer and fall gardens.
Thank you for your thoughts and prayers!
Kathy
Delegate Kathy Szeliga
Civil rights are not fair game for popular vote, and you know that. You would not put any other civil right up for popular vote. That is cowardly, and mean. I disrespect you for this.
I agree. How would she like it if we voted on her marriage? It is just not right!
How is it a civil right to redefine marriage?
Not sure I understand the relevance of “redefining” anything in terms of rights.
The Equal Protection clause isn’t being rewritten. It’s being applied, in courts, to couples that never petitioned for their rights to be protected before.
When people with disabilities have gone to court, arguing that they were not being given equal access to public buildings, it changed requirements to ensure that they had equal access. It didn’t change anyone’s inherent rights.
Every person in the US has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You have to redefine marriage to include other configurations such as male/male, female/female, male/male/female, female/female/male, inter-species and any other scenario.
And in some states, everybody has the right to marry his first cousin. In other states, no one does.
But how is extending the right to marry one’s first cousin a “redefinition”? It’s an extension of rights, just as it is when it is extended to same-sex couples.
Delegate Szeliga: Thank you for keeping your constituents’ desires in mind, unlike other elected officials. I and many of my friends and family will definitely sign the Referendum Petition.
I totally agree with TRU DAT
“Delegate Szeliga: Thank you for keeping your constituents’ desires in mind, unlike other elected officials. I and many of my friends and family will definitely sign the Referendum Petition.”
FINALLY, a Delegate that has guts to stand for the majority even when the others “FEAR” the opposition!
The only one’s making the money out of this tennis game across the country (The JUDICIAL SYSTEM) are the very one’s that created this mess and continues to play their tennis game for ONE PURPOSE: To line the attorney pockets NATIONWIDE.
Shameful US Citizen.
Again, Delegate Szeliga – I bow and kneel at your feet. You are worthy to be praised for your stand on this issue and an ICON FOR MARYLAND.
For the love of god let them marry already, I am so tired of hearing about this. It is none of our business.
Since those elected can’t seem to vote the way the “majority” of their constituents wish then unfortunately referendum is the only choice. You (the elected) were not put in the position to legislate as YOU (the individual or minority) see fit but as WE (the group or majority) sees fit. Kinda tired of the whole squeaking wheel getting the grease thing……..
The “religious” people should concentrate on eliminating divorce among the “religious” people before they worry about marriage equality.
Great rebuttal Proud. Everyone notice that he uses the tired and false arguments of MSNBC. This is so typical of a Marxist.
With respect, I don’t understand why any Marylander would want the responsibility to decide the marriage of any other Marylander other than his or her own.
A marriage license isn’t some sort of prize. It’s a legally-binding contract between the couple that signs it. It entails a set of obligations, difficult to break, and as a legal document, is used when you need to establish your relationship to the other party, usually at times of illness or death or when dissolving the relationship/
Why would we put this up for a VOTE, particularly given that gay people are often the target of blind animus?
Just as I would never ask for the chance to ok or veto someone else’s marriage, I would ask the same decency of my fellow Marylanders to let me determine my own.
Thanks.
Exactly Linguist. If you are a male and want to marry your brother, or you are a female and want to marry your sister, people should just shut up and mind their own business. Who you want to marry is just your business, everyone else butt out!
Well, with respect, while I think there are a number of reasons why the law could argue that already related family members cannot change their familial relationship, even in those cases, I have absolutely no interest in voting on their ability to do so.
Let the legal profession and the judiciary determine if it clarifies the law or if creates problems. I’ll live with their decision.
Let me ask you this: Why would you want to VOTE on other people’s lives?
Linguist,
Each time you vote it affects peoples lives in one way or another. Happens all the time. Are you saying that people should never vote?
No, actually I think voting is crucial to a well-functioning republic.
I want to vote for people to represent me and to pass legislation that will affect EVERYONE. I may hate gas taxes, but if they are raised, I will pay them. All kinds of statutes get passed all the time, some that I agree with and some that I am unhappy about.
What I really don’t see the need for are plebiscites where a majority can target minorities. Seems like a system bound to mistreat those whose numbers are small, and even worse when a minority is stigmatized or despised.
And it seems likely to run afoul of equal protection clauses, as well.
There has to be a REASON to restrict the rights of that minority. And I for one don’t understand the zeal of some to vote away the rights of that minority since it doesn’t affect THEIR ability to marry. The majority has nothing to lose by that vote.
The minority could lose everything.
Linguist why do you want to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman?
With respect, my partner of many years and I were married by a rabbi in a religious ceremony in a mainstream Jewish temple, before our friends, family, fellow congregants and before God. No redefinition was involved. Rather, it followed from the belief system we subscribe to. Reform Judaism has as a central tenet the promotion of social justice. Treating its gay members inclusively is not a “redefinition” — it’s part of the creed to be followed. And the words of the vow we spoke to one another work equally well for a man or a woman. They are about commitment, not gender.
You’re free to disagree with our view of God and religion, of course. For example, we may already disagree on such things as the divinity of Jesus. And that’s all right. I think we just have to agree to disagree on religious faith issues, at that can include the religious rite of marriage.
Now we are seeking a CIVIL marriage license. We are currently legal strangers to one another, despite the fact that our lives, finances and decisions are all completely interdependent. It’s crazy that the law treats us that way, in contradiction to the reality of our lives.
Marriage licenses aren’t religious rites. They also are not prizes. They are legally-binding contracts that obligate the parties who sign it to one another in a number of important ways. I can’t see why anyone would care that we want to take on those obligations. Really, I cannot.
Marriage contracts generally become important at times of crises– financial straits, illness, death, separation. Given that my life is completely intertwined with that of my partner, not having the law recognize that reality makes no sense. And determining the ability to sign that contract based on what’s between our legs makes even less sense to me.
What I don’t get is why anyone else would want to prevent us from taking on those obligations, but I am willing to listen to your explanation. Thanks.
Linguist you were able to perfect your right to marry someone of the opposite sex and you chose not to do so.
And now you want to redefine marriage to include your same sex relationship.
Smitty,
A little background may help you to understand.
I first began to realize I was gay as a young teenager (maybe earlier). At the time, I had no word for it, didn’t know anyone who was openly gay, and didn’t know anything about sexual intimacy of any kind. It was the 1960s, and there was very little information out there about “homosexuality.” What I was to discover was that what little information was available turned out to be highly misleading, even wrong.
But by age 14, I knew enough to write in my diary, “I am a homosexual.”
I spent several decades of my life alternating between doing everything possible to change my sexual orientation (based on my reading, and later, counseling) and waiting for what they called a “phase” to pass.
It didn’t. I dated girls, and had several fall in love with me. I still remember when one girl’s mother called up my mother and lambasted her over the phone. Seems that her daughter was broken-hearted that I had somehow “led her on.”
Not what I intended to do, I assure you. But I certainly was trying to be something I was not.
Meanwhile, I fell madly in love with my best (male) friend.
Over the course of my life, I’ve had many choices to make. Being gay was never one of them.
Whether to marry someone’s daughter was. And I decided that would have been highly unethical. I wouldn’t do that to anyone’s daughter.
I also gave a lot of thought over the years about what gives life meaning. I believe we must have personal integrity. I also believe that living a full life, complete with love, adds meaning to it.
I don’t know what determined my sexual orientation, though I suspect it was largely biologically-based. Regardless, I am a full-fledged citizen of this great country. I live a good, moral life. And now I seek to protect that one relationship in my life that means more to me than any other.
That’s a choice I am willing to fight for.
Peace.
Linguist you can believe that homosexuality is genetic, however there is no scientific proof.
You are no less and no more a citizen than anyone else, but you don’t get to redefine marriage and your civil rights have not been violated simply because you could have and still can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Well, first convince your sister or daughter to marry me. Once you’ve done that, we’ll talk.
Somehow, I don’t think that my partner need start worrying. 😉
You’ll have to do your own convincing.
What he wants is not the right to marry someone of the same sex – what he wants is to preclude you from denying his right to do so by government edict. And whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not, the cause is immaterial to his ability to conduct himself or herself as a consenting adult in the privacy of their home. That’s basic 4th amendment. No government intrusion in the bedroom.
Mr. Porter,
The 4th Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This governs acts by the government in criminal investigative procedures – not simple conduct done in the privacy of one’s home.
I think you meant to cite the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
At first blush this would seem to be some blanket constitutional provision to allow anything on my property to happen of my choosing. However, that is not the case.
And how has the Supreme Court ruled on this part of the Constitution? I believe it has affirmed that the individual has a right to privacy in his own home. I could be wrong of course. But it would make sense to me that what I do in my home, so long as it does not abridge any other criminal statutes, or violate another person’s rights is my business. And bedroom laws have been whittled down in this country over the last several decades, including Griswold in 1964.
There is nothing stopping Linguist and their partner from engaging in anal and/or oral genital sexual activities in private.
Linguist wants to redefine marriage between a man and a woman to include same-sex configurations.
Linguist is not being denied their civil rights since they have the right like everyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Well folks it’s going to go on to the ballot. There will be enough signatures to get it there. And it will be defeated. Same sex marriage is not going to be approved in Maryland just like it has not been approved in any other state where it has gone to referendum.
At the same time the out of state tuition question will aslo be defeated and undocumented illegal worker aliens will not receive a tuition break.
O’Malley will be in a snit, his wife Katie will call all of us cowards again but she won’t apologize this time.