Delegate Don Dwyer, Homophobe

As a Marylander, I am embarrassed by Delegate Don Dwyer and his attempts to codify his hatred for homosexuals into Maryland law. Its not enough for the Delegate that Maryland defines (wrongly in my opinion) marriage as between a man and a woman.

The amendment, as proposed in the Senate, would amend the state constitution to include the following: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is a valid marriage in this state.”

Offered as Senate Bill 564, the amendment is championed by Sen. Larry Haines (R-Baltimore and Carroll counties) and supported by 12 other senators.

Meanwhile, Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) has introduced a similar measure via House Bill 919. His proposal calls for a similar definition, but also bars public schools from teaching about “same-sex relationships.” More than 30 delegates back the bill.

This is pandering to bigotry, pure and simple. Does Delegate Dwyer really believe that the state constitution should dictate public school curricula? What risk could there possibly be for teaching students about same-sex relationships?

Thankfully, the momentum is not behind Delegate Dwyer and his hateful cohorts. Instead it is behind Equality Maryland, 400+ members of which gathered before the statehouse to rally for marriage equality. Many in the legislature agree that these amendments are bunk:

Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) said Dwyer’s proposal has “no legs.”

She said his amendment’s stipulation that public schools not teach students about “same-sex relationships” did nothing to help his cause.

“He seems each year to take it one step further, to make it more ridiculous than the previous year in his quest to spew hatred toward the GLBT community,” she said. “He only won re-election by 25 votes. Perhaps his constituents were sending him a message that there are other priorities that he should be focusing on?”

And no, the opposition isn't only coming from Montgomery County:

Del. Galen Clagett (D-Frederick County)...

“I hate wasting time with this stuff,” he said. “We’re not dealing with real issues.”

Clagett, 65, said he so opposed the proposed amendment that he threw Dwyer’s request for support into the trash. To prove his point, the delegate later sifted through his trash bin and produced the document for a reporter.

Delegate Dwyer's website makes it clear that he is staunchly against gay rights. He lists Maryland politicians who "support gay rights" as if they are a list of convicted criminals. Lets hope the voters in Anne Arundel's 31st district can learn from the actions of Delegate Clagett, and ditch their support for Dwyer.

In Case You Couldn't Make it to Equality Maryland's Lobby Day

The Stakes Get Even Higher for Maryland's Same-Sex Couples

As long as Delegate Dwyer and his bigoted buddies are in the Maryland Legislature, marriage equality will continue to be threatened by constitutional amendment's attempting to ban same-sex marriage. Well, any chance to do so this year will bring with it a considerable rise in the stakes of such legislation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the 2004 Michigan ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage also bars public employers from providing same-sex partner benefits of any kind. It is even more imperative that any same-sex marriage ban in Maryland be stopped and same-sex partner benefits from public employers must be codified and protected.

No matter your position on gay marriage, same-sex partner benefits are a necessity. The goal of these bans are to "protect traditional marriage" and though I won't debate on the merits of that position, I will posit that same-sex partner benefits, applied outside of a marriage, in no way threaten "traditional marriage". In fact, they completely leave it out of the equation.

I have argued before, along with Equality Maryland, that only full marriage rights for homosexuals should be acceptable to Maryland Democrats. But we must do something to ease the unfair burden on same-sex couples, and codifying partner benefits from public employers is a great start.

What would be unacceptable is a same-sex marriage ban that also eliminates the possibility for public institutions such as colleges to offer their employees same-sex benefits.

Want to get involved to to try and stop the same-sex marriage ban? Want to fight for same-sex partner benefits for Maryland's public employees? Equality Maryland is holding a lobbying day on the 12th, in Annapolis. Join them.

If you can't make it, be sure to write your representatives and tell them that you support equality for all Marylanders. Tell them to vote no on the same-sex marriage ban and to codify same-sex marriage benefits for state employees.

Update: Bruce Godfrey, owner of the now sprawling Crabmedia notes in his blog the importance of the coming decision from the Maryland Court of Appeals on the Deane & Polyak v. Conaway case. Lets hope the the Court of Appeals joins with Circuit Court of Baltimore City in finding that the Free State's prohibition on same-sex marriage does not withstand a constitutional challenge.

Lack of Same-Sex Partner Benefits = Financial Disaster

Somewhere, there is a ski lodge that this past weekend lost two customers.

Ordinarily, Robin Hurni and Jeanne Williams would have gone skiing last weekend.

The winter sport is one that the Denton, Md., couple once enjoyed. But because Hurni’s new employer won’t cover Williams’ health care costs, the skis were stowed.

“We’ve held back on doing activities because of the lack of health insurance,” Hurni said. “If she got hurt, what would we do?”

While I am sure the unnamed ski lodge will survive, the situation that Robin Hurni and Jeanne Williams is more serious. Because Hurni's employer does not provide health insurance for her partner (a benefit guaranteed to heterosexual couples), they are in a constant state of emergency.

Hurni, a sonographer, said her job options are limited. And after taking $3,000 out of savings to buy health insurance for Williams last year, additional expenses are not feasible.

The couple is now earnestly searching for a remedy — and hoping that Williams stays healthy in the meantime.

“It’s a precarious position,” Hurni said. “We stand to lose the house if we don’t have benefits and something happens.”

Now, if they were a heterosexual couple, the solution would be simple. Marriage would force Hurni's employer to cover Williams and the couple would continue to be productive citizens, unburdened by insane health care prices.

However, because they are lesbians, they have no recourse. A medical emergency for Williams would incur a financial disaster much greater than missing out on two customers on a popular ski weekend.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no simple way other than marriage to guarantee family rights. Equality Maryland states:

“Marriage Inequality in the State of Maryland” documents that without the ability to secure a marriage license, same-sex couples have no automatic legal right to:

- Take Family and Medical leave to care for a sick partner
- Ride in an ambulance with a partner
- Visit a partner in a nursing home or hospital
- Receive Social Security benefits in the event of the death of a partner
- Sponsor a foreign-born partner to stay in the country
- Inherit jointly owned property without incurring crippling tax penalties
- Roll a partner’s pension into their own
- Make burial decisions
- Have the security of continued insurance coverage after the death of a spouse
- Take advantage of social services provided to help families cope with catastrophe, poverty, homelessness, or abandonment

Add to that list that without marriage, employers are not required to provide benefits such as health insurance to partners, even when they already provide these benefits for heterosexual spouses.

Anything less than legal same-sex marriage is insufficient. Lets hope the court of appeals does the right thing.