Maryland Senate passes bill legalizing freedom to marry for same-sex couples

February 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm 88 comments

By Adam Bink

Fantastic news in Maryland just now:

After about an hour of discussions from opposing views, Maryland’s State Senate voted 25-21 in favor of Senate Bill 116, The Civil Marriage Protection Act on Thursday, Feb. 24.

A House version of the bill is expected to be introduced in House committee tomorrow.

If signed into law, the bill would grant same-sex couples legal marriage rights in the state of Maryland, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

The marriage bill was written by Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out gay member of Maryland’s Senate, and Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery).

Maryland State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. allowed Senators to talk before declaring a vote at 6 p.m., with debates from each side limited to 30 minutes after the vote.

Onward to the Assembly!

Entry filed under: Marriage equality.

So wait, NOM: Has the fight begun or not? Sturm und drang, or not

88 Comments Add your own

  • 1. 415kathleenk  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    Yahoo– Cheers for the Maryland State Senate and all the activists who pushed this true. Is it just me or was the opposition fairly muted and weak- i know the vote was close but what i indicated there wasn’t much support from the public but more support for equal marriage

    Reply
  • 2. Ronnie  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    EQUALITY!!!!!!!!!!…..<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 3. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:32 pm

      subs.. woot!

      Reply
  • 4. LCH  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

    Reply
  • 5. Dave in ME  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Yeah!

    Reply
  • 6. Alan E.  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    WOOOPPPEEEEE!!!!

    Reply
  • 7. nightshayde  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Phew. I can breathe again. I was really worried that a few Senators would backtrack.

    Hooray for equality!!!

    Reply
  • 8. Dave in ME  |  February 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    I guess their little tour stop last year didn’t work too well…

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
    • 9. Dave in ME  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:01 pm

      Not too much on the NOM Maryland pages. Just an old story from 2/22: “Maryland Catholics confront their lawmakers on same-sex marriage.” http://nomblog.com/4975/

      Dave in Maine

      Reply
      • 10. Mark  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm

        I bet Maggie is about to implode…

        Reply
      • 11. Carpool Cookie  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:55 am

        ““Maryland Catholics confront their lawmakers on same-sex marriage.”

        For a second I thought that said lawnmowers, not <lawmakers.

        Reply
        • 12. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:09 am

          lol. I’d like to take a lawnmower to some of the lawmakers!

          Reply
        • 13. DaveP  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:16 pm

          Well, I suppose that if I were a Maryland Catholic and I found out that my lawnmower was trying to get a same-sex marriage, I’d probably want to confront my lawnmower about it : /

          Reply
          • 14. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:34 pm

            Do you think we can start a rumor that Maryland Catholics are trying to marry their (same-sex) lawnmowers?

          • 15. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 26, 2011 at 7:08 pm

            That would solve their problems about who will mow their grass, LOL!

        • 16. Dave in ME  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:28 pm

          Ha! That’s funny!

          And that’s STILL the only article on the NOM site!!

          Dave in Maine

          Reply
    • 17. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 24, 2011 at 6:39 pm

      And Maggie’s testimony REALLY didn’t go well. She bumped it from a 24-22 to a 25-21 loss, at least.

      Reply
      • 18. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:05 pm

        I’m really loving the Maggie Effect (whenever Maggie opens her mouth, she wins supporters for our side because people don’t want to be like her.) Ugly is as ugly does, and no one wants to vote that ugly.

        I’m referring to inner ugliness here, btw–I’m not one to mock a post-menopausal gal for being pudgy, seeing as it can happen to the best of us. *blush*

        Reply
  • 19. AnonyGrl  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    The news just keeps getting better… and the momentum just keeps growing!

    Congratulations Maryland!!!!

    Reply
  • 20. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    And another step forward…………

    Reply
  • 21. Bob Barnes  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    I’ll be moving to Maryland in the next few years. I love my progressive Arlington, but the rest of the state chains us to years of dismal inequality.

    Reply
    • 22. fiona64  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      Virginia isn’t too progressive, actually …

      Va. OKs bill likely to close most abortion clinics

      :-/

      Misogyny and homophobia go hand-in-hand because they come from the same position: rigid gender roles/expectations.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 23. nightshayde  |  February 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm

        Did you see the one by the Georgia State Rep who proposed a bill mandating investigation of all miscarriages which happen outside medical facilities and mandating a fetal death certificate for all miscarriages?

        Same bill criminalizes abortion, calling it “fetal murder.” Apparently, the nimrod who proposed it doesn’t think the Constitution gave SCOTUS the right to pass Roe v Wade – therefore, he doesn’t think Georgia has to consider that tiny little piece of law.

        Reply
        • 24. nightshayde  |  February 24, 2011 at 5:18 pm

          Oh — and with that whole miscarriage thing… if the investigation can’t prove that the miscarriage was a result of “natural causes,” the woman can be charged with a crime & in some instances would be eligible for the death penalty.

          Never mind that a staggering percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage (many before the woman even knows she’s pregnant), or that lots of times there is no clear cause for a miscarriage…

          I’m not sure who, exactly, would be investigating these thousands of “fetal deaths” each year, or how they’d get paid… unless, of course, more money is taken away from helping children who miraculously made it to term…

          Reply
          • 25. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:02 pm

            I suggest the Lysistrata Strategy. Women in Georgia should refuse sex (with men, that is) for as long as this law is in effect. That way, they won’t run the risk of being accused in the event of a miscarriage.

            I give the law’s survival time as…oh, about twenty minutes, or a little longer if there’s a Georgia Tech game on.

      • 26. Bob Barnes  |  February 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm

        Fiona, Arlington is more liberal than Maryland we are very unlike the rest of the state.

        Reply
  • 27. Lizeth Conde  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Congratulations Maryland!!!
    Equality for all!

    Reply
  • 28. Bob Barnes  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    OT:

    Brian Brown has an opinion piece in the WaPo

    Who will fight for the Defense of Marriage Act?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022405033.html

    He’s taking a bloodbath in the comments area.

    Reply
    • 29. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:58 pm

      appropriate comment to BB’s article:

      More religionist mindbarf…

      Reply
      • 30. Ray in MA  |  February 24, 2011 at 5:54 pm

        Commenr:

        Hey, my two-year-old also threw a tantrum. Will the WaPo publish it, too?

        LOL!

        Reply
        • 31. Ray in MA  |  February 24, 2011 at 6:07 pm

          I like the link below each comment: “Recommend” (an instant tally) Fun to see the bigots are losing in most of their comments…

          Comment;

          homer4 wrote:
          How much money does Brian Brown make peddling hatred against law-abiding gays and lesbians?

          The only straight men who are this obsessed with homosexuals are not straight.

          2/24/2011 5:24:36 PM
          Recommended (9)

          Reply
          • 32. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 25, 2011 at 5:31 am

            I recommend that comment too!

        • 33. Ray in MA  |  February 24, 2011 at 6:12 pm

          pookiecat wrote:
          The author of the article is a total, homophobic moron who knows even less about the law than he does about the whereabouts of his wife & kids.
          2/24/2011 4:33:46 PM
          Recommended (16)

          Reply
        • 34. Ray in MA  |  February 24, 2011 at 6:19 pm

          westCAOR wrote:
          Well said Mr. Brown.
          2/24/2011 3:44:04 PM
          Recommend (1)

          Reply
          • 35. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 25, 2011 at 5:31 am

            revealing

    • 36. New  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:01 pm

      He’s predicting the future of DOMA here:

      Reply
    • 37. Phillip R  |  February 25, 2011 at 7:42 am

      Wow…I was really expecting a lot of comments against marriage equality. I surf a lot of news sites throughout the day and CNN (and more so Yahoo news), you tend to see a lot of hateful remarks against homosexuals on articles about equality. It was nice to read more arguments pro equality.

      I found it hilarious that someone equated not using apostrophes with being gay.

      Reply
  • 38. Dan Hess  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Ha, no way in Hell this won’t pass the House. We’ll have marriage equality in Maryland by this time next year–most likely this October unless NOM actually manages to get a ballot initiative (almost impossible in MD).

    Reply
    • 39. Steve  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:48 pm

      It only takes 55.000 signatures. Very easy to do for NOM. Even within the short time limit

      It’s just that the signature requirements are extremely stringent (like signing with the exact name as on other documents).

      Reply
      • 40. Dan Hess  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:05 am

        It takes 55,000 valid signatures (generally requires a large buffer) from multiple counties (so they can’t just pull from Frederick and Howard), with numerous other requirements besides. We’ll see, but ballot initiatives have historically been pretty hard to get in Maryland.

        Reply
  • 41. JonT  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    That’s great news!

    But, about that referendum…

    Reply
  • 42. Papa Foma  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    I am not offended by religious institutions who do not want to have same sex marriages performed in their houses of worship. Who would want to be married in such a house of worship in the first place. Including that exception shuts NOM and their kind up — all that talk about churches losing their tax status goes out the window. It also goves churches who are against the idea now, a chance to grow, and perhaps change their tune later.

    Reply
  • 43. Mackenzie  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    LOVE THIS!!!!

    Reply
  • 44. Rick  |  February 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    What an incredible time for gay rights–at long last.

    Reply
  • 45. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 24, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    YAY, Maryland! Now, troops, can someone in Maryland get us the information we need to help keep NOM from being able to get a referendum to take away the gains we are making in Maryland?

    Reply
  • 46. Rhie  |  February 24, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Yay!!

    Reply
  • 47. John B.  |  February 24, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    NOM and their allies will huff and puff, but they can’t get around the inconvenient fact that this is legislation enacted by the elected representatives of the state, most of whom have been pretty up-front about their support for gay rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular. Likewise, the governor of Maryland was elected despite (or perhaps because of?) explicitly supporting same-sex marriage and pledging that he would sign such a bill.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage used to complain bitterly about unelected, liberal, activist judges “legislating from the bench”. But now that state legislatures and governors have stepped in to do the jobs they’ve been elected to do, NOM doesn’t want the courts, or the legislatures, OR the executives to have any say in this; they’re fond of saying “let the people vote” but they’re not talking about democracy, they’re talking about mob rule.

    Reply
  • 48. Kathleen  |  February 24, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    UPDATE Perry

    City and County of San Francisco join in the motion to lift stay

    p.s. Sorry this is late; I was away from my computer.

    Reply
    • 49. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 24, 2011 at 8:32 pm

      YES!!!!!!! Kathleen, YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
      • 50. jw  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:00 pm

        agreed with RAJ: kathleen you provide so much!

        Reply
    • 51. Cat  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:13 pm

      Thanks Kathleen! Interesting read… The current lack of grounds for a stay sounds very plausible to me (of course IANAL, and I like the proposed conclusion). We’ll see if the court agrees and lifts the stay. These are exciting times!

      Reply
    • 52. AB  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:16 pm

      I read this on the AFER website as soon as they posted it. This is a really interesting argument. (And it seems like a sure thing.) I have no clue how Cooper & Co. could respond.

      Reply
      • 53. Kathleen  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:25 pm

        I just want everyone to know I had a very good reason for being late. I was at a Williams Institute event this afternoon and just about the time this came in, I was getting a GREAT hug from David Boies. :)

        Reply
        • 54. Mark M (Seattle)  |  February 24, 2011 at 10:08 pm

          I am SO jealous!!!!!!
          Details???

          Reply
          • 55. Kathleen  |  February 24, 2011 at 10:23 pm

            It was this event at the Williams Institute:
            http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/programs/samesexmariage2.24.html

            After the talks by the panelists, we had an opportunity to mingle. I introduced myself, explained that I’d been at the oral arguments and shook his hand that day, but had missed an opportunity to get a hug. He stood up immediately and gave me a wonderful hug. He got a little teary when I was telling him how much I admire and appreciate what he’s doing. (I’m a hopeless Boies groupie)

            P8TT’s Carpool Cookie and Elizabeth Oakes were also at the event, but were outside on the patio during my “Boies moment.”

          • 56. Xandoz  |  February 24, 2011 at 11:13 pm

            I wanted to go to this so bad, seeing as how I GO to UCLA, but I couldn’t get out of work :( Glad to see other P8TT’s were able to attend and fill us in!

          • 57. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 25, 2011 at 5:35 am

            Thank you for sharing : D Looks like 2 hours of lovely discussion.. What a nice week to hold this event!

          • 58. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm

            Xandoz, I’m sorry we missed a chance to meet. Maybe next time!

          • 59. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:39 pm

            That is SO amazing! I just love it when I hear how emotional he and Olsen get when talking about he importance of this civil rights fight.
            Warms my heart ;-)

          • 60. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 25, 2011 at 8:55 pm

            Well, Cookie didn’t want to feel like third and fourth wheels Kathleen–all that huggy gushy stuff just makes folks all shy and stuff. I commend your bravery; I always feel like I’m bugging when I tell folks I admire how much I admire them. I did want to take a plaster cast of Professor Cott’s microphone, though.

          • 61. Dave in ME  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:34 am

            Ha! At first I thought you were saying that you tell people that you are admiring yourself on how much you admire them!

            I wish I were living back in L.A. and could be a part of all that!

            Dave in Maine

          • 62. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:38 am

            Well Dave, the fact that I posted about my admiration here could indicate that you are right, I was admiring how much I admire those I admire…but the simpler explanation is that, at times, the grammar module in my head goes BSOD. :)

        • 63. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 24, 2011 at 11:12 pm

          Okay, now I am REALLY jealous! I have got to convince BZ to move us to California!

          Reply
        • 64. Alan E.  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:50 am

          That’s awesome! It seems like it would be hard to get a hug (or even get up to talk to them), but it’s actually pretty easy.

          Reply
        • 65. DaveP  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:28 pm

          Woo hoo! You go, Kathleen!

          Reply
    • 66. Straight Dave  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:36 pm

      Here’s an extracted summary for those who hate wading through legal documents. I’ve tried to capture the high points. This SF team is good!

      (The rest of this is essentially direct quotes from the SF argument, lightly edited and citations omitted in the interest of clarity and brevity. There is some repetition, but that only helps to reinforce how obvious it is that a stay is not sustainable.)
      ————————————

      Before granting a stay, federal courts “must make certain that an adequate basis exists for the exercise of federal power.” “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”

      The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests with the party invoking it. (in this case, The Prop 8 Proponents)

      The [9th Circuit] Court certified a question to the California Supreme Court, noting that it “request[ed] clarification in order to determine whether [it has] jurisdiction to decide this case.”

      With certification of that issue, the Court made plain that the Proponents have not to date met their burden to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. As a result, they are not entitled to a continuing stay of the district court’s judgment.

      “[a] grant of a stay is an exercise of judicial power, and [federal courts] are not authorized to exercise such power on behalf of a party who has not first established standing.”

      Absent jurisdiction, the court simply has no power to grant a stay”

      Because this Court has held that it requires “an authoritative determination by the [California Supreme] Court” of Proponents’ rights and interests under California law “before [it] can determine whether Proponents have standing to maintain this appeal,” the City respectfully submits that the Court presently lacks jurisdiction to maintain a stay of the judgment.

      As the Supreme Court has held, when jurisdiction is unsettled a stay of judgment cannot be maintained.

      Reply
    • 67. Straight Dave  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:45 pm

      And many thanks to Kathleen for providing this doc in the first place! If I were gay, I’d be very jealous of your hug with Boies. Of course, I might have done it anyway. The man is just brilliant.

      Reply
      • 68. Straight Dave  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:52 pm

        Come to think of it, I’m jealous of him hugging you Kathleen. brain is fried… getting late here…. hard to think straight

        I’ll bet Cooper doesn’t go anywhere near this argument, and simply tries to distract the court’s attention elsewhere. What the hell could he say about it, without looking like an idiot?

        Reply
        • 69. Bob  |  February 24, 2011 at 10:27 pm

          Straight Dave,,, thanks for your summary,,, very much appreciate that,,,, glad you did it , while you were thinking straight,,,,
          I like the short version,,, brilliance and not thinking straight are two very endearing qualities to me,,,

          and all that mixed with a hug fest is the topper for me this evening,,,, glad Kathleen got a hug from Boise,,,,

          Reply
        • 70. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 24, 2011 at 11:26 pm

          Also, I am beginning to wonder if the folks from City and County of San Francisco went to the same law schools as Olsen and Boies. Wherever they went to law school, it is very obvious that they paid attention in class, and have only honed a very fine education in the time since graduation. These folks are fantabulous!

          Reply
  • 71. Maryland injury attorney  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    It is steel unsolved!

    Reply
  • 72. Michael  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Radical anti-gay pressure groups like NOM may win battles, but WE will win the war (which those promoting the immoral anti-gay agenda declared against us).

    Reply
  • 73. Kathleen  |  February 24, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    UPDATE: Mass DOMA cases

    DOJ Letter to Court re: pending cases

    This makes it sound like the feds intend to stop defending in these cases as well. I’ll be looking forward to clarification!

    Reply
    • 74. Straight Dave  |  February 24, 2011 at 10:12 pm

      OK, Congress. Time to stick your nose in there and get it bit off. This is gonna be a tough call for some of them. The world is moving way too fast for their taste and they’re no longer in control of the train. This will be fun to watch.

      Reply
      • 75. Cat  |  February 24, 2011 at 10:50 pm

        They were wining that Obama didn’t mount a vigorous defense. Now let them try! The witness stand is a very lonely place…

        Reply
        • 76. DaveP  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm

          Oh my… .YES! Your statement gave me an idea….

          When any members of Congress start getting the bright idea to step up and defend DOMA to show the bigots back home that they still deserve their votes, we should send them some of the jucier re-enactments, transcripts, etc. from the Prop 8 trial so they can get a sobering view of just what they will be facing when they walk into court and have to deal with the AFER legal team! That should give them second thoughts. Somethign about “better to remain silent and be thought a fool…”

          Reply
  • 77. Tim in Sonoma  |  February 25, 2011 at 1:30 am

    Go Maryland….hopefully Ca will not be far behind!
    Question: Is the passage of civil unions in Hawaii “marriage” or not ???

    Reply
  • 78. AB  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:15 am

    I have some concerns about California.
    Pursuant to rule 8.50 of the California Rules of Court, governing applications, those opposing an application need not respond. According to 8.54, however, those opposing a motion need to respond within 15 days. These are all under Title 8, Article 3.: Applications and Motions; Extending and Shortening Time.
    What AFER filed was an application to shorten time, which seems to me to indicate that there would be no timeline for Cooper to respond. However, if that is true then what would be the point of having a motions rule under “Shortening Time” in the rules of court? To what would 8.54 be referring if not to rules governing an application, which seem to be more explicitly addressed in 8.50? If 8.54 applies to motions in general (and I would assume that this is the case, given the context of the specific rule), then what is the timeline for opposing counsel, or the Court, to respond to an application? Is there one? And if there is not one, then what would be the point of applying to shorten/extend time at all when there could, concievably, be no response to the application? (In other words, what would keep the CA SC from just not answering the application?) And since 8.50 does not contain a timeline for response, can we assume that the court would prefer that any opposition to an application be filed the same as it would be for a motion (15 days, pursuant to 8.54)?
    Furthermore, let us assume that the California Supreme Court wants to see whether the 9th Circuit is going to lift the stay before deciding to shorten time, and the 9th Circuit wants to see what the Supreme Court will do before deciding to lift the stay (as the material facts in each petition [with the obvious exception to the City and County of San Francisco]) seem to depend on the outcome of the other. In this case, could we see an impasse where each court is waiting for the other to act?
    I am skeptical that Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye will grant the Application to shorten time. In the opinion accepting certification, the court writes: “In order to facilitate expedited consideration and resolution of the issues presented, and to accommodate oral argument in this matter as early as September, 2011, the normal briefing schedule is shortened, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68[.]” I do not believe that the court would agree to expedite what it views itself as already having worked hard to expedite. I think that they think they have done quite enough already.
    Then again, I am a scholar of political science and not an attorney.

    Reply
  • 79. AB  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:25 am

    And…
    In New York, an appeals court upheld the estate of a gay man that was left to his husband whom he had married in Canada. They rejected the argument made by the man’s brother that same-sex marriage violates New York law.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gay_heir_apparent_EKcBwpgM7yMsnAgLEl6ftK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

    Reply
    • 80. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:14 am

      Sad that his husband passed away – but glad the law is on his side.

      Reply
  • 81. Ronnie  |  February 25, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Mother Sues Florida School District After Teacher Mocks Her Gay Son, Compelling Him to Leave School
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/mother-sues-florida-school-district-after-teacher-mocks-her-gay-son-compelling-him-to-leave-school.html

    from the article:
    A mother is suing the Flagler County, Florida school district after bullying of her gay son from students and a specific teacher was ignored, News 13 reports:

    As a freshman at Flagler Palm Coast High School, Herbert said high school has been tough, especially since he’s gay.

    “People haven’t been nice, let’s put it that way,” Herbert said.

    Herbert said classmates have bullied him before, but now it’s gotten worse. One of his teachers has singled him out.

    Herbert has left the school and is looking at other education options. The school district claims they are investigating his case.

    Teen: Teacher Mocked Me for Being Gay
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/24/Teen_Teacher_Mocked_Me_For_Being_Gay/

    “He stood in front of the class and said ‘you can’t put Mountain Dew or Pepsi in the same fridge or they’ll turn gay.’ He [also] came over to me, and I was like ‘hi.’ He said hi, like he was imitating me or mocking me,” the 15-year-old told Florida’s News 13.

    “I don’t feel safe with him being there,” Herbert’s mother, Dorene Davenport, told News 13.

    (me) so is this what NOM & The Ruth Institute mean by “protect the children”, making school so unbearable for kids & teens that they would rather stop their education or change schools then be subjected to discrimination, harassment, ridicule, & homophobic bigotry by even the teachers?

    S…N…D…A….Protect ALL students….Straight, Lesbian, Bi, Transgender & Gay…..S…N…D…A….Treat ALL faiths the same way….S…N…D…A…Black, White, Latin, Asian let ALL races learn today…..S…N…D…A….Bullying GO AWAY!!!!……EQUALITY NOW!!!!!!……

    Just saying…..<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 82. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:37 am

      go Mom! (Dorene). Great to hear parent standing up for 15 year old son instead of another tragic story like “Prayers for Bobbie”

      Reply
    • 83. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:09 am

      And Herbert’s mother deserves all our support and encouragement! This is the true definition of a parent! I say we find out how to contact them so we can let them know that they have a worldwide community here at P8TT who are in their corner!

      Reply
  • 84. Mackenzie  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:40 am

    I hear that both members of the House and Senate will be introducing bills for repealing DOMA soon. I feel it is time for another phone flood to the capitol building. CALL YOUR SENATORS, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. AND DEFINTIELTY CALL REP JOHN BOEHNER (to overwhelm him) and push for repeal!

    Reply
    • 85. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 25, 2011 at 6:42 am

      I have already done that. I haven’t called Boehner yet.

      Reply
      • 86. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 25, 2011 at 8:58 pm

        Be nice, send him a box of Kleenex first.

        Reply
        • 87. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 27, 2011 at 6:01 am

          I sent him a case via Sam’s Club click and pull. They are even going to deliver them to his office.

          Reply
  • 88. Morning Quickie  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Why women miscarry is still a mystery to medical science. There are untold factors that could influence whether the baby is carried to term or not. To find out more, read this: http://morningquickie.com/2011/02/25/miscarriage-is-not-your-fault-and-not-a-crime/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

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

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,303 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...