Top Maryland Republican announces support for the freedom to marry

February 2, 2011 at 11:03 am 112 comments

By Adam Bink

Remarkable news today from Maryland. Earlier this year, Republican Senate Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman resigned from his post under pressure because of his pledge to introduce a civil unions bill.

Well, today Kittleman announced his is abandoning that plan and will support legislation to extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Big, big news. This is the (former) leader of the opposition crossing party lines to support equality. His full statement, via the Washington Blade, is below.


I want to express my thoughts on SB 116, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. As most of you know, I have long supported equal rights for same sex couples. A few years ago, I voted in favor of allowing same sex couples the right to make medical decisions for each other.

This year, I decided to work on legislation that allowed civil unions for all couples – opposite sex and same sex couples. My goal was three-fold:

1. I wanted to ensure that same sex couples had the same rights and
responsibilities as married couples in Maryland;

2. I wanted to remove the government’s intervention in what most Marylanders
consider a religious institution (marriage); and

3. I wanted to develop a consensus on an issue that has been very divisive for many years.

In early January, I announced my proposal for civil unions for all couples. Somewhat surprisingly, I received much more criticism from people who wanted same sex marriage than those who oppose such marriages. I actually received quite a lot of messages and emails from Republicans supporting my decision.

A recent poll performed by Gonzales Research confirmed strong support for civil unions. The poll found that 62% of Maryland voters support civil unions. Of that amount, 73% of Democrats, 60% of Independents and 41.5% of Republicans support civil unions. This figure was higher than the support for same-sex marriage in Maryland.

According to the poll, 51% of Maryland voters support same-sex marriage. Of that amount, 65% of Democrats, 52.4% of Independents and 24% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, despite the support by a strong majority of Maryland voters, I did not receive any support from my Republican and Democrat senate colleagues. In fact, the Republican senate caucus yesterday voted to take a “caucus position” against same-sex marriage. My Republican colleagues have also made it very clear to me that they would not be supportive of my civil union legislation. I also did not receive any support from Republicans or Democrats in the House of Delegates.

Based upon the lack of support I have received for my civil union bill, it was evident that my legislation would not receive a favorable report from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. With the deadline for submitting legislation approaching quickly and with the Committee hearing scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 8th, I made the decision to forego my efforts to have civil unions for all couples in Maryland.

As I noted above, my primary goal has always been to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples currently have in Maryland. I see this issue as a civil rights issue. I was raised by a gentleman who joined with others in fighting racial discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s. Watching him fight for civil rights instilled in me the belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation, is entitled to equal rights.

Consequently, with the civil union legislation no longer being a viable option, I was put in the position of deciding whether to support same-sex marriage or voting to continue the prohibition against same-sex marriage. As a strong proponent of personal and economic liberty/freedom, I simply could not, in good conscience, vote against SB 116.

I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual
life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.

I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision.

I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.

Entry filed under: Marriage equality.

Entertainment media and the distance we have to go Creating Change

112 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Peterplumber  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:05 am


    • 2. Ed Cortes  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:51 am


  • 3. Straight for Equality  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Now if we can just find a lot more like him….

  • 4. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:08 am


  • 5. Kathleen  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Now THAT’S what I like hearing from an elected official!!! Civil rights trumps religious disapproval in a country that is not a theocracy.

    • 6. JonT  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm


      But a question for those of you versed in bible-stuff:

      I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman,…

      I was always under the impression that marriage, as defined in the bible, was one man, and as many women as he could afford to keep.

      If that’s true, then why do people keep repeating this fallacy of the bible stating that marriage is one man/one woman?

      • 7. Kathleen  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:35 pm

        I suspect the more accurate statement would have been “my religion teaches” or “my pastor teacher.”

      • 8. phillykarl  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:06 am

        They get the one man / one woman thing from the First Book of Timothy, Chapter 3. It says that church leaders should only have one wife. Many Christians interpret this to mean that all men should have only one wife, since Christ commands all to be leaders.

      • 9. Steve  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:55 am

        As if that’s the only thing in the book they lie about. Many Christians never read the bible. They just get some choice passages from their priests. Who of course leave out the ridiculous, contradictory and inhuman parts that make up significant parts of it.

      • 10. fiona64  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:44 am

        Pertinent to this part of the conversation: Utah’s Rep. LaVar Christensen has proposed a bill that would *require* discrimination against households headed either by single adults or same-sex couples.

        Why, yes, it echoes the LDS “Proclamation to the World.” Why, yes, Rep. Christensen is LDS. Why do you ask?

        Fiona (who is very confused about why a church that touts itself as apolitical is so busy inserting itself into politics)

  • 11. Randy  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:10 am

    FINALLY, a legislator who understands his role as mouthpiece of his constituency! Kudos to Mr. Kittleman for standing up for what he believes in… and for believing that the path dictated by his faith is not the One True Way.

  • 12. Michelle Evans  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:13 am

    This is wonderful news, and I wish other Republican leaders would take his lead and run with it. They are supposedly against government intrusion, so they should all be in favor of additional government regulations against same gender marriage.

    The best thing he said in his statement is: “our government is not a theocracy.” If only more people could understand that very simple premise, we would all be much better off.

  • 13. nightshayde  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Color me impressed.

  • 14. Sagesse  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:17 am

    A principled, carefully articulated stand. Perhaps he will give other Republicans the courage to follow. Going to look up his email to send a thank you for the support.

    • 15. Kathleen  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:27 am

      Here’s his official web page, with his email.

      • 16. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:49 am

        thx S & K ! “Tipping point” anyone? Reminds me of change of heart by San Diego Mayor…off to compose email!

        • 17. AnonyGrl  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:03 pm

          Just shot this off to his email…

          Dear Senator Kittleman,

          I just read your statement on Senate Bill 116, and I want to tell you that I was moved to tears. Thank you for a well written, well reasoned response, and for your support of civil rights and marriage equality.

          You said that while your spiritual life is extremely important to you, it cannot be the sole basis for your decisions as a state senator. I applaud you for that, as it is a point so many fail to grasp.

          I am not of your constituency, as you may have guessed, but marriage equality being an issue that is important to me, I follow news about it carefully, as do many others. Today, the LGBT community and its supporters at large, and I, in particular, are standing together in our appreciation of your support, and your thoughtful statement.

          As a life long liberal agnostic Democrat, you may imagine that it is a very pleasant surprise to find a self professed religious Republican to whom I can send a note like this, but you, sir, deserve it.

          Thank you!

          • 18. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:22 pm


          • 19. Sheryl Carver  |  February 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm

            Good job, AnonyGrl!

            I’m also going to write to him, but I doubt it will be nearly as eloquent.

  • 20. Andrew_SEA  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:20 am

    One thing that is missing for all of the speeches and rhetoric from both sides: personal integrity.

    (standing ovation for Mr. Kittleman)

    Here is proof positive that you CAN have a personal belief system AND STILL recognize that civil rights are seperate.

    All American citizens require protections for their families. It builds a stronger nation. You may not agree with the family model one may have, but then is it your job as an elected official to judge a citizen or demographic and implement laws based on that?

  • 21. Dave in ME  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:21 am

    I hope people see now that not ALL republicans are evil and hateful.

    Dave in Maine

    • 22. AnonyGrl  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:52 am

      I think we knew it, but it sure is nice to see it so clearly and perfectly once in a while. :)

    • 23. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 2, 2011 at 1:04 pm

      I have never considered ALL Republicans to be evil or hateful. I am quite worried about the Republican Party having been hijacked by extremists, being obstuctionists when it comes to governing, and having all too few members who stand up to the party. Kittleman’s statement, “our government is not a theocracy,” is something that, as a Wiccan, I have been waiting more than 16 years to hear one, single Republican in office say.

      This is a wonderful step in the right direction, but the Party has a lot of work to do to make up for the likes of George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr and their ilk.

      • 24. JonT  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:40 pm


    • 25. Sheryl Carver  |  February 2, 2011 at 6:42 pm


      I grew up in Maine, left when I joined the US Air Force, & was a Republican for much of my adult life. I finally changed my party affiliation after “W” was elected. Not just because of that, but by then it had become clear to me that the GOP had been hijacked by the Religious Right.

      I applaud folks who are working to return the party to true conservative values. And that’s not something I have the skills nor energy to try to do.

      I am well aware that the Dem’s have their own issues, including our “evolving on marriage” President, so please don’t take this as Repub-bashing.

      I am very glad you are part of our online community.

    • 26. Nicole  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

      For a long time I’ve always said that I don’t have any problem with Republicans, Christianity, or even Conservatism. I always figured that marriage equality philosophically followed in line with the ideals of a limited government that doesn’t invest its interest into controlling its citizens private lives. That’s easily a slippery slope to a nanny state.

      The ‘liberals’ who want to conserve the first amendment and equality are more conservative than the ‘conservatives’ who want to change things and turn the country into the theocracy it was never intended to be.

  • 27. Chrys  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Now there is a man I would be proud to be represented by… and I’m not sure I’ve ever said that about a Republican before.

  • 28. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:24 am

    “our government is not a theocracy.”

    HEAR….HEAR!!!!!…….Thank you Senator Allan H. Kittlemen for your support……<3….Ronnie

  • 29. Steve  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Wow. It’s really rare for any politician to admit that political decisions shouldn’t be based on faith or religion. Much less a Republican. If only more were like that.

  • […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BarTGila, Barb and Casey Kloehn, Testimony. Testimony said: Top Maryland Republican announces support for the freedom to marry: […]

  • 31. AnonyGrl  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:51 am

    “However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy… Therefore, while my spiritual
    life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.”

    I want to kiss this man. He got it exactly right.

  • 32. John B.  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Good coverage from the Baltimore Sun:

  • 33. JayeInMaryland  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Although this man doesn’t represent my district, as a Marylander, I’m beyond thrilled by his support and will be emailing him right now.

    Most of us here believe this marriage equality bill will pass and be signed soon. However, the NOM-bots are already in the process of gathering the needed 55,000 signatures to put the legislation up to vote. Some think Maryland might be the first state where voters say YES to marriage equality. I hope and pray this is true.

    In the meantime, Mr. Kittleman truly gives me hope that TRUE conservatives know the importance of making all families strong. Thank you, sir.

  • 34. Bob  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    we will know we arrived when this is not viewed as a rare political view,, but the norm and standard, this is what it could be like,,, once Americans change their values from corporate greed to placing a higher standard on human life, and putting that first ,,,,, human rights trump any other,,,, and are the separation between church and state,,,,, the religious right does not value human rights …… the gov’t and elected officials have the job of protecting human rights,,,, this guy sees the light….. interesting he uses the terms civil rights,,,, good for him,,,,

  • 35. Manilow  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    YAY! Does anyone know when this bill is up for a vote? Should we start calling/emailing other fence-sitters? I am in CA so I have no idea what political action should be taken in MD.

  • 36. AnonyGrl  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Here is the entire text of the bill. Short, sweet and to the point. It will take you about a minute and a half to read it in its entirety.

    • 37. Sagesse  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      And they didn’t feel the need to use the word ‘passion’.

      • 38. AnonyGrl  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm


        • 39. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:52 pm

          snorting! LOLOLOL

          • 40. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm

            oh my gosh! I can’t stop laughing @ “passion” comment…..breathe…..

      • 41. nightshayde  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:29 pm

        They didn’t mention reproduction, either.

        • 42. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 4:57 pm


        • 43. Sheryl Carver  |  February 2, 2011 at 6:45 pm

          Or procreation, responsible or otherwise.

          • 44. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm

            stop! lol!

    • 45. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm

      glad it was short…I still had to read several times to realize it was to REPEAL article – Family Law : /

  • 46. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    OMG! This is great news. Now if we can just help this attitude spread nationwide and into the federal level as well!

    • 47. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:51 pm

      : D

  • 48. Rhie  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Proof of how far right the Right has gotten. Kittleman was considered a Conservative just a few years ago.

  • 49. AB  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    When is the vote? I see on the website that the hearing is Feb. 8. Do we have some sort of timeline here?

  • 50. AnonyGrl  |  February 2, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Here is some info from Equality Maryland, and I would think they might better be able to direct our assistance…

  • 51. 415kathleenk  |  February 2, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    wow this is fab. Reminds me of the Mayor of San Diego’s turnaround on marriage rights during the Prop 8 campaign. Kudos to Rep Kittleman for being an upstanding public servant. And here’s to the good people of Maryland having their say when the Baltimore Sun decided in explicably to allow Peter Sprigg to spew hate ( scuse me ‘editorialize’)
    why can i not paste a live link???,0,2030527.story

  • 52. 415kathleenk  |  February 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    oh good it worked! never mind that question

  • 53. StevenJ  |  February 2, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Simply. Amazing.

  • 54. Canadian JAG Officer  |  February 2, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Wow, so nice to see a leader demonstrate real leadership! I hope this bill moves through quickly!

  • 55. Carpool Cookie  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Well good for him!


    I hope politicians who appose Marriage Equality come to realize they’re dooming their family name and descendents to being branded with bigotry forever.

  • 56. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    OT – Thank you senate

    Breaking News Alert: GOP repeal of health-care overhaul fails in the Senate
    February 2, 2011 6:28:11 PM

    On a vote of 47 to 51, the Senate defeated a GOP effort to repeal President Obama’s health-care overhaul. While the outcome was expected, not a single Democrat voted to proceed with repeal, underscoring the great hurdle that Republican efforts to revise the health-care law face in the Senate.

  • 57. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 2, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    If only more politicians (and this includes democrats), accepted that they have a diverse constituency whom they were elected to serve and had the courage of their convictions to not always vote the party line, this country would be a much better place to live.

    I do believe that if Mr. Kittleman were to run for president, he would get my vote. Of course, going against the party line pretty much assures that he will not be a Republican candidate. Too bad.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    • 58. Carpool Cookie  |  February 2, 2011 at 4:45 pm

      Yes…he has done a wonderful thing.

      It’s very heartening!

      He stated the obvious, and maybe it will even make him more popular among Republican voters. I don’t think the really extreme conservatives truly represent very many people, anymore.

  • 59. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    Ricky Martin with the ladies of “The View” this morning briefly discussing the tour, the new album, the new single, fatherhood, & his up-&-coming appearance as Che in “Evita” on Broadway.

    You can also watch his performance of his new single ” The Best Thing About Me is You” here:


    • 60. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 5:22 am

      Beautiful Family : D Even the 2 conservative ladies seemed welcoming to Ricky…Glad they made mention to Elton John’s new baby too. AMAZING families like Ricky M. and Elton J. are being broadcast in a positive light on a national level….Lovely, lovely! thx 4 sharing Ronnie

      • 61. Ronnie  |  February 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm

        You’re welcome…It is awesome that these videos & images are out there…but now every time my mom sees them she looks at me …then says…”I’m not getting any younger”…then rolls her eyes and starts talking about how beautiful their families are…no pressure mom…no pressure….<3…Ronnie

  • 62. Ronnie  |  February 2, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Utah Rep.: Ban Gays From Publicly Funded Programs
    By Michelle Garcia

    “A Utah legislator introduced a bill Wednesday that would require all publicly funded programs, laws, and regulations, to ensure they exclude families headed by gay and lesbian couples.”

    This bill goes as far as the actually write “Christianity into the law” violating the religious liberty of all other Utah citizens…..furthermore….They plan on taxing LGBT citizens wile excluding them from using everything their hard money pays for….can you say THEOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP?…… > I …..Ronnie

    • 63. Peterplumber  |  February 2, 2011 at 5:58 pm

      WOW, that is disturbing. He wrote this into the law,

      “”marriage and family predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World”

    • 64. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 2, 2011 at 8:36 pm

      so, gays and lesbians can pay taxes but not benefit from those programs. If this stupidity passes, I see a taxation uprising in Utah, I certainly wouldn’t pay state taxes if I was not going to be able to use the programs those taxes pay for. And, since schools are publicly funded, the children will not be allowed to attend public schools.

      We can certainly say that he is not proposing this for the sake of the children.

      Gregory, as a Utah resident, do you think this has any chance of actually passing?

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      • 65. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 5:48 am

        Good Morning Sheryl and wonderful son : D seems pretty radical…and I’m going to say WONT pass(think positive!!). Current Governor Herbert has been meeting with local LGBT persons (invited to recent large event hosted by Log Cabin Republicans) and he seems to be able to moderate the ultra conservatives in a variety of ways(including pushing for balanced talk on immigrations issues). Also Utah is on the verge of a adopting a state-wide non-discrimination policy for LGBT persons after 11 of the largest cities have adopted non-discrimination policies. In December Sake Schools adopted a non-discrimination policy which includes gender identity to protect our dear “T” persons.

        I see this as a “last gasp” attempt to retain some “normalcy” for freaked out conservatives(aka those who have difficulty adapting to change) There is a pretty big local division however, which was brought to a head during the Elder Packer protests.

        I wish we still had Governor Huntsman (who just announced he’s leaving his China Ambassador posts…probably to pursue 2012 US Presidency). Of all the Conservatives, I would choose Huntsman for President if Pres. Obama fails…As he was an open early supporter for state-wide civil unions in Utah.

        wow…I’m rambling..hope this make some sense…

        • 66. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:00 am

          Making perfect sense to me, Gregory. Thanks for your take on the situation in Utah.

          I noted he is from Draper. That is where my niece lives. Makes me wonder if he is the jerk that announced in Sacrament meeting (not their ward) that their son and a couple of other teens were gay and so ward members should not let their kids hang out with them. Jerks live everywhere and unfortunately, a lot of them make it into policy making positions.

          Speaking of Elder Packer, he spoke at our stake conference and not one whisper about the subject of his General Conference talk. Perhaps he’s been told to not make those kinds of comments.

          Sheryl, Mormon Mother

    • 67. fiona64  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:45 am

      Should have scrolled down, LOL

      Here’s the link from the Salt Lake Tribune:


    • 68. fiona64  |  February 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm

      It appears that Lavar Christensen has decided to drop in on, the pro-equality site. (“Lavar’s” talking points echo Christensen’s Sutherland Institute “think tank” talking points almost to the letter, and he is tap-dancing around the hard questions).

      This guy is shameless.

      And yes, his Sutherland Institute advocates for religious government. Why do you ask?


      • 69. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:17 pm

        Yep, I know Lavar (BOO HISS!) I still am not prepared for posting @mfm……and still have book report on todo list. I really appreciated getting to know you better through the characters in your book : D

        • 70. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:49 pm

          I’m glad you liked it, Gregory.



  • 71. Peterplumber  |  February 2, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    NOMblog had a post about Peter Sprigg in Maryland, something about Maryland legislature considers radically changing the definition of our most fundamental social institution — marriage.

    I commented on this post. I wrote, “Can someone please tell me how marraige equality re-defines marriage?
    Can someone please tell me how marriage equality will effect reproduction for opposite sex couples?
    Does NOM really think that is two gay guys get married no one else will be able to have children?
    I am not going ot have kids whether I get married or not. ”

    The comment went *POOF* like all my comments do on that site.

    • 72. Felyx  |  February 2, 2011 at 11:04 pm

      Not all your comments go poof!!! From the NOM Maryland article…


      1. sw Posted February 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

      We must defend Traditional marriage here and everywhere.

      2. Peter Posted February 2, 2011 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      We must defend Marraige [sic] Equality here and everywhere!

      Go Peter!

      • 73. Peterplumber  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:08 am

        Hey, you’re right! Something I posted last night was on their board this morning.
        I had posted some honest questions, that NOMers and others have never really satisfactorily answered. One of the NOMblog regulars, a conservative from New York, attempted to answer. I was not satisfied with the answers he offered.

        He wrote, “ConservativeNY
        Posted February 3, 2011 at 2:45 am | Permalink
        “Can someone please tell me how marraige equality re-defines marriage?”

        Marriage will only be about coupling, the romantic and/or sexual fulfillment of adults. And the procreation and rearing of children with a mom and a dad will be considered an irrelevant byproduct. And anyone who believes otherwise will be officially wrong and officially a bigot.

        “Can someone please tell me how marriage equality will effect reproduction for opposite sex couples?”

        It will effect resposible procreation. That will lead to more couples forgoing natural marriage and have more children out of wedlock. Most people won’t go through the trouble of getting married to have children if marriage isn’t about children. Most won’t tie themselves to one person if they don’t need to.
        And as illegitimacy rises, not only are children raised in broken homes, but the rest of us are forced to pay higher social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending.
        Just look at the state of Scandinavia and the Netherlands who have had SSM the longest for confirmation.”

        So I had to write back. This morning I posted this. Dear Mr. ConservativeNY,

        Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. However, I still do not understand.

        First, I looked all over the map for the “state of Scandinavia” but could not find it. I did however Googled same sex marriage in Scandinavia, and found this on the first hit, written by Dr. M.V Lee Badgett of UMASS, “Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called “registered partnership.” (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.

        Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970′s. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.”

        Additionally, you write as if you have seen the future. You say thing like “it will…”. Last I knew, no one could really tell the future, so emphatically stating “it will” does not hold water. If you wrote “it may”, then I may have taken your word for it.

        Regarding my first question, I asked how allowing same sex couples to marry will redefine marriage, and you answered, “Marriage will only be about coupling, the romantic and/or sexual fulfillment of adults.”. I don’t agree with you that this is a new definition of marriage. Most people I know, “straight” people anyway, couple up when they are romantically involved. If the romance lasts for a lengthy period of time, the decide to marry. I don’t understand how that effects the definition of marriage. Therefore, I don’t think you adequately answered any of my questions, you simply spouted out the same rhetoric we hear on a daily basis.

        Can someone please honestly answer my questions for me?

        • 74. Felyx  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:02 am

          “Marriage will only be about coupling, the romantic and/or sexual fulfillment of adults. And the procreation and rearing of children with a mom and a dad will be considered an irrelevant byproduct. And anyone who believes otherwise will be officially wrong and officially a bigot.”

          I want to point something out here… I have noticed that in the Religious Rhetoric, particularly Catholic propaganda, that ‘homosexuality’ and abortion are usually referenced in the same topic.

          The first line of this statement is pointing out the hedonism of the gay adults that cannot do ‘God’s work’™ of reproduction. The phrase in the second line ‘irrelevant byproduct’ is the term used by religious who say that this is the term used by abortionist to refer to the aborted fetus. This is a nicely discombobulated phrase that lumps gays and ‘child killers’ in the same pile… i.e. both that do not support life and ‘God’s Divine Plan’™.

          If and when you respond to people who make these statements… pay close attention to the wording. If you remember and feel inspired, mention that you emphatically do NOT support killing babies. Even if they do not directly state this, it is a fairly good assumption that they are thinking it.

          S Lubovyu,

          • 75. Felyx  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:06 am

            One more thing…

            Forgot to mention that, even though I would not have said it, I could find very little to dispute in that last sentence there.

            С Любовью,

          • 76. Peterplumber  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:19 am

            Which last sentance??

          • 77. Felyx  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:12 am

            “And anyone who believes otherwise will be officially wrong and officially a bigot.”

            I am not sure how the officialness of it is determined… and I don’t really see anyone saying they believe what the writer is accusing them of saying or believing or whatever… but I am hard pressed to see how he is, indeed, not wrong (officially or otherwise).

            When religious people talk of abortionists I frequently hear ‘homosexuals and abortionists…’ and when they talk of those with a drug problem I often hear ‘homosexuals and druggies…’ and when they are talking about Dr. Kevorkian I have heard ‘Homosexuals, abortionists and other death culture activist who want to kill the sick and elderly by encouraging suicide…’ etc. After many years of Catholic school I began to notice a theme….

            I have heard these coded messages when talking to some of the less outspoken members of tha-hat (exclusivity emphasis on the word ‘that’) belief system. Without even being directly accused of supporting abortion, I have tripped up more than a few by responding to anti-gay rhetoric (gays want to demean heteros by turning children into ‘marital by-products’ etc.) by saying, ‘I am not a supporter of baby-killing!’ (A true statement.) What is interesting is that the person talking against gay people would then stop and have to think about what I said. What is really astounding is that some of those aforementioned persons would then apologize noting that they rarely meet gay people that do not support abortion.

            I doubt that everyone of you here support abortion. What I think is closer to the truth is that many religiously minded persons do not encounter gay people much at all but are very well indoctrinated into thinking that the ‘gay lifestyle’ ™ necessarily involves abortion (some-illogical-how).

            Just bear this in mind when you hear this kind of speech. Watch for coded language.


            (Russia has lots and lots of ‘Yaponski’ stuff!)

        • 78. fiona64  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:48 am

          “Just look at the state of Scandinavia ”

          Oh. Good. God.

          There is no such thing as the “state of Scandinavia.” You can always tell when someone is quoting Palin and Beck, because they bring up “look at Scandinavia” as though it’s a country. Scandinavia is a *region,* comprised of *several states.*



          • 79. Kate  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:05 am

            My guess is that they mean the “condition” of Scandinavia….

          • 80. Felyx  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:14 am

            Sadly, Kate, Fiona is probably closer to the truth!

          • 81. Kate  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:29 am

            Yes, I may indeed be giving them more credit than they deserve!

          • 82. fiona64  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:57 am

            Nope, Kate. Palin and Beck have both talked about “the country of Scandinavia” in the context of same-sex marriage. While MrConservativeNY *may* have meant “condition,” I wouldn’t bet a paycheck on it.


          • 83. Kate  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:05 am

            Glad to hear it, Fiona! It confirms my impression of these types. I hated thinking they might have actually said something correctly.

  • 84. JPM  |  February 2, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    NOM Alert

    The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will be holding a hearing on the same-sex marriage bill (SB116) next Tuesday afternoon, starting at 1:00pm. The hearing will be held in Room 2 in the East Wing of the Miller Senate Office Building (11 Bladen Street) in Annapolis.

    This hearing and the subsequent committee vote is our first chance to derail the same-sex marriage bill – and throwing a major wrench in the plans of activists who have virtually guaranteed that they would push same-sex marriage through in Maryland this year.

    NOM blog

    • 85. Dave  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:43 am

      WOW! I’m shocked that they didn’t say “homosexual marriage.” But then again, it is Maryland, they don’t want to put off too many people, eh?

      Freakin’ douchebags!!!!!!!

  • 86. Sagesse  |  February 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Read BB’s list of things to do. P8TT can do all those things too… and do them better :).

  • 87. Ed  |  February 2, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Seems NOM is trying to spread itself too thin….just a vibe from reading their blogs….

  • 88. Mackenzie  |  February 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    I just sent the Senator a thank you email!

  • 89. Michelle Evans  |  February 2, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    A bit OT for this thread, but in case anyone is interested, Thursday afternoon, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC will be having a live interview with the young gentleman who spoke up in Iowa about the proposed law to allow marriage equality be put on the ballot. One of his mothers will also be joining him on the live interview, which airs sometime during the 5:00 pm hour.

    • 90. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:05 am

      Thanks for ALERT! Here is the video…highlight is ZACH WAHLS but also talks about “responsible procreation…accidental children are not about love…” DOH! gotta watch! thx Michelle : )

      • 91. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:20 am

        P.S. It’s actually SAFE to read comments posted about this video : D Recommend you do!

  • 92. Felyx  |  February 2, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Just a word from Russia…

    I want to make a plea to CC and all the community to protect this Kittleman from NOM. We all know that they attack their own far more viciously than they do to those they openly hate. Intimidation from the inside is horrific and is what keeps everyone ‘in line’.

    Please put some time and effort (and maybe money) at countering NOM from any attacks that they will throw at Kittleman. the Right is seriously starting to split between the Religious Right and the (honestly) Moral Right… Kittleman is leading the way. The more we can help to protect him from the NOMbie base the more likely other Republicans with hearts and minds will stand up and redirect the herd!

    Kudos to Kittleman! Keeping fingers crossed… er… while not feverishly typing emails to advocate and appreciate!


  • 93. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:18 am

    UPDATE Perry

    Plaintiffs’ Reply Letter to California Supreme Court

    • 94. Peterplumber  |  February 3, 2011 at 5:35 am

      How come when Cooper writes, I am totally confused in reading it, but when Olsen writes everything makes perfect sense to me?

      • 95. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 3, 2011 at 6:53 am

        Could it be that Cooper uses a lot of tautology, where Olsen and Boies use real logic?

      • 96. Felyx  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:45 am

        Olsen and Boies have to ‘play up’ to their educated audience that has a preference for facts and honesty.

        Just don’t think about it and Cooper’s stuff will make perfect sense. (If you find yourself inadvertently thinking at all then you can just pretend you were not thinking by nodding and saying ‘That’s Right!’ and ‘Praise Jesus’.) It works for me every time… Praise Jesus!


    • 97. 415kathleenk  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:08 am

      Do we love Ted Olson or what! tx for link Kathleen

    • 98. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:14 am

      This is a letter – so it doesn’t require a table of contents…right?

  • 100. NetAmigo  |  February 3, 2011 at 5:27 am

    If Republicans value their party, they are going to have to start repudiating the religious fanatics that now dominate the party. Otherwise, the party is doomed.

    • 101. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 3, 2011 at 12:36 pm

      Uh… don’t you mean REFUDIATING? ;-) LOL

  • 102. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:03 am

    California Supreme Court may decide by next week on the 9th Circuit Courts issue.

    • 103. Dave  |  February 3, 2011 at 8:46 am

      Is that a rumor? Or where did you hear this information?

      • 104. erkhyan  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

        Dave, I personally read it here.

        – Franck P. Rabeson
        Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1322 days, as of today.

        • 105. JPM  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:40 am

          Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue says the California Supreme Court will decide soon, maybe next week, on whether to enter the Proposition 8 gay marriage fray.

        • 106. Kathleen  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:52 am

          Note that’s just saying… will decide on whether to enter the fray – that is, whether or not they’ll take the question certified to them. This isn’t saying anything about when we might get a opinion from them if they do decide to take it up.

        • 107. Manilow  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:01 am

          We should start a pool. Dibs on Tuesday! The decision will be announced Tuesday!

        • 108. Dave  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:46 am

          Thank you!

  • 109. JPM  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Oops. So much for Kittleman being a staunch supporter of equality. Looks like he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    While Kittleman’s support for the bill will easily get proponents the 24 votes they need to pass the measure in the Senate, his support for a filibuster makes it harder for same-sex marriage supporters to get the 29 votes they need to advance the bill to that point.

    Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, a socially conservative Democrat, improved the bill’s chances of passing this year when he said he would vote to end debate of the measure. However, Miller has not said he would vote for the bill itself.–Gay_Marriage-Kittleman/

    • 110. JPM  |  February 3, 2011 at 9:06 am

      To clarify

      Allan Kittleman, R-Howard, said he would vote for the plan, although he said he would not vote to end a filibuster of the measure.

      • 111. Dave  |  February 3, 2011 at 10:47 am


  • […] follows the former minority leader, Sen. Kittleman, announcing his switch to support the bill. The big […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...