Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Push Pledge
Volunteers at polling places on Tuesday solicited signatures on a pledge to support the recently passed law.
Photos
In front of Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville, Sharon Vignati and Denise Woodard, armed with clipboards and pens, asked voters Tuesday evening to support an issue that wasn’t on the primary election ballot.
In February, the Maryland General Assembly voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Vignati and Woodard want to make sure that stays in place.
Opponents are attempting to collect 55,736 valid signatures from Maryland voters by June 30 to block the new law from taking effect on Jan. 1, The Washington Post has reported. If they get the necessary signatures, voters would be asked on the November ballot whether to repeal the law.
“We’re asking people to sign a pledge that if it goes to the ballot, that they’ll vote not to let (the repeal) happen,” Vignati, of Germantown, said Tuesday.
Vignati and Woodard, who plan to marry in November 2013, were part of an effort by Marylanders for Marriage Equality to counter the repeal efforts.
They asked voters to sign a pledge “to show your support for defending all Maryland families. All children, no matter who their parents are, must be protected equally under the law.”
"It’s a show of force to say we understand there’s people who are opposed, but we think there’s more people who are with us than against us, and we’re capable of getting signatures, too, and we’re capable of showing support also," Vignati said.
Some same-sex marriage supporters, based on the history of similar ballot questions in other states, worry that putting the question to voters statewide could put the new law in peril.
California voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2008, less than five months after a state law legalizing such marriage took effect. A federal appeals court struck down the ban in February, leading supporters to petition the court to review its decision, though the matter ultimately could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A recent poll found Marylanders split on the issue, according to the Washington Post.
State Sen. Robert J. Garagiola, who was the lead sponsor of a same-sex marriage bill that passed the Senate but died in the House of Delegates last year, said that while campaigning in Western Maryland he was pleasantly surprised to find more support for the law than he expected.
“There are true blue Democrats out in Garrett County,” Garagiola said while greeting voters at Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville. Garagiola, a Germantown Democrat and a three-term state senator, lost the Democratic primary in the 6th Congressional District on Tuesday to John Delaney.
Vignati said not many of the voters she talked to Tuesday told her they oppose same-sex marriage.
“Some people say ‘Yes, we support it, but we don’t want to sign,’ ” she said.
Whether voters pledged to support same-sex marriage or not, “I think people know it’s coming,” she said.
Adam
2:50 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
Send me the petition in E-mail. I would be happy to not only sign it but also to help gather signatures to support equality and dignity to all Marylanders.
Sean R. Sedam
10:17 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
@Adam: The group's website is hyperlinked in the article above (click on the words "Marylanders for Marriage Equality").
Or go here: http://marylandersformarriageequality.org/
Amber
10:20 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
God loves everyone, including homosexuals. I hope and pray that we can show them the love of Christ, but at the same time fight against same-sex marriage. God Himself defined marriage, so who are we to re-define it? I fear that our nation is in serious trouble because we are completely ignoring God and leaving Him out of the picture. In love, I peaceably decide not to support this law.
Piotr Gajewski
11:44 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012
Amber,
Marriage is defined by many religions (in yours apparently “God Himself defined marriage”). Marriage is also defined in State law.
No one has proposed that the definition of marriage in various religions be somehow altered. The state has no power to do that anyway, nor would it want to.
However, redefining marriage in state law makes perfectly good sense, as there are legal benefits that flow from our State’s institution of marriage which makes the redefinition a simple matter of civil rights.
This is not “leaving Him (God) out of the picture.” It is just not imposing your God’s law on our State law. (Imagine, if someone else insisted that their god’s law should be imposed on our State’s law, and it was different from your beliefs: I am guessing that you might not be so supportive.)
So, if you are serious about equal “love” for all, I hope that you may reconsider and see your way to supporting this equal right in our State’s law.
Amber
12:28 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
I completely understand your point, but respectfully disagree. The difference in our thinking (and you may never agree) is that I believe with all my heart that there is one true God, who is the ultimate authority. I believe this not out of naive suspicions but out of personal experiences with Him, in which He has proven Himself so real to me. That is something that cannot be argued. I am serious (as is my God) about equal love for everyone, and would go out of my way to demonstrate that. This, however, is not the same as equal tolerance of all things. If we were to be tolerant of everything to satisfy all religions/beliefs, I suppose we would eventually have to legalize murder and many other things that are at this moment considered criminal.
I understand that you don't agree and I have no desire to create an argument or debate- so this will be my last comment. I just want to make a firm stand against something that will undoubtedly affect our nation in a negative way.
Sean R. Sedam
1:18 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
Maryland Juice cites an observation one Rockville City Council member made on his Facebook page about tactics used by same-sex marriage opponents to collect signatures for their petition drive:
http://www.marylandjuice.com/2012/04/report-from-field-sign-of-questionable.html
Piotr Gajewski
2:14 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
Amber,
The same God that you cite was used, in part, to perpetuate laws in our State against people of different races marrying as recently as the late 1960s. Now, I am married to a woman of a different race than I am, and I am most thankful that those who were trying to perpetuate those laws back then in the name of God did not prevail.
I am certain that many then asserted that striking those laws would “undoubtedly affect our nation in a negative way.” I am sure there are some, even now, who still feel that way. But for my part, I am happy that I was able to marry who I wanted.
And please note that I am arguing tolerance and not at all trying to “satisfy all religious beliefs.” Indeed, as a nation, we should not be bowing to a religion, not yours and not mine. I am happy for you and your relationship with God. But I hope that you can learn to stop short of imposing this on others. Gays marrying will have no negative impact on your life. Live and let live! That is true love (and I venture to say that I know some who worship the same God that you do, who feel that way also)!
JH
8:20 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
You must be a supporter of Warren Jeffs. Why limit the number of people in a marriage? Why have an age limit? Next you will be pushing for same family marriage. Live and let live.
JH
8:13 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
Let the voters decide. Stop the nonsense and just say no to the "I hate religion" crowd.
Piotr Gajewski
9:01 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
A common tactic I find in the conservative agenda arguments is deflecting discussion of real proposals and escalating to outrageous proposals that no one else is proposing and everyone would reject. So, for example a mandate that all should contribute to their health insurance becomes the door to forcing everyone to buy broccoli (of course they are distinguishable and no one is proposing that everyone should be forced to buy broccoli) or in this case, allowing gays to marry becomes a door to allowing incest or polygamy (why stop there – Rick Santorum is happy to propose man on dog?). And again, these can be distinguished and no one is seriously proposing the latter.
JH: if you are proposing polygamy or incest be legalized, feel free, but I will not be supporting your proposals (and personally I do not know anyone that would). At the same time, I hope that you have at least come around and can wrap your brain around interracial marriage, or are you still against that as well?
JH
3:32 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Your extreme liberal argument does not hold up to the very standard you set. What about live and let live, civil rights ? Polygamy and other primitive arrangements have been outlawed, otherwise we would see a great many cases of each. In a civil society we set limits on human behavior. 20 years ago few would even thnik about or consider a redefinition of marriage. If you want legal benefits that marriage provides ---- go for it, but don't redefine marriage to fit your desires.
Piotr Gajewski
4:14 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
JH:
There you go again bringing up polygamy and “other primitive arrangements.” I reject those, but you keep bringing them up, so I have to assume that you must find them attractive somehow. Or shall we both agree that we reject them?
Meanwhile, Maryland Senator Norm Stone (still on the job today!) voted in 1967 against legalizing interracial marriage in Maryland. The argument back then: interracial marriage “violates God and nature.” Sound familiar JH?
No one here is part of the “I hate religion” crowd that you cite (unless you are). I just do not want to see religion (my, yours) used to justify the denial of civil rights as it has been in our (even recent) past.
Steve Davies
12:47 am on Saturday, April 7, 2012
Hey, Piotr. Are you really the conductor of the National Philharmonic Orchestra? If not, howzabout using your real name and not appropriating the real Gajewski's? Not that I disagree with you. I'm just sick of people using other's names online.
Piotr Gajewski
12:58 am on Saturday, April 7, 2012
Hi Steve,
It is the real me (although I suppose I have no way of proving it) - other than through a number of people who know me in person and also follow my posts here... (Sean Sedam is one).
Steve Davies
2:27 pm on Saturday, April 7, 2012
Glad to hear it. I apologize for thinking otherwise..