FREDDIE GRAY CASE: Jury In Porter Trial Expected To Be Seated Wednesday; Opening Arguments Could Also Begin | LIVE BLOG | WJZ Will Have Complete Coverage Of Officer Porter's Trial At 11 p.m.

Same-Sex Marriage Legislation Passes 72-67 In Md. House Of Delegates

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (WJZ)– Same-sex couples are one step closer to being able to legally marry in Maryland. The Civil Marriage Protection Act narrowly passes in the House of Delegates.

Meghan McCorkell was in Annapolis for the key moment.

Supporters got 72 votes. They needed 71 votes to pass the bill. But they weren’t sure what was going to happen until the very last moment.

An historic moment in the House of Delegates. By a narrow margin, the bill to legalize same-sex marriage passes.

“This is the right thing to do and I’m convinced in my heart that we’re doing the right thing,” Del. Michael Busch, Speaker of the House, said.

It is a big win for Gov. Martin O’Malley who sponsored the bill and tirelessly fought for its passage.

“Our leaders we elect are moving us forward with care for one another, with love for one another, with understanding and respect for one another. That’s what one Maryland is,” he said.

Emotions were overflowing for some openly gay delegates.

“It’s been an emotional, amazing experience, and I look forward to the bill passing the Senate now,” Del. Luke Clippinger, D-Baltimore City, said.

“The gay and lesbian communities can look at this vote and say, ‘Finally, finally!'” Del. Maggie McIntosh, D-Baltimore City, said.

Opponents put up a fight until the end, nearly dominating the debate before the vote.

“Same-sex marriage is wrong,” Del. Emmett Burns, D-Baltimore County, said.

“I think if people would just vote their conscience, just vote up or down, I think it actually wouldn’t have passed,” Del. Michael Hough, R-Frederick and Washington Counties, said.

The vote was certainly a nail-biter. Supporters say they didn’t know if they had the votes until the very end.

“When the last woman got up to speak today, that’s when the tears started for many of us,” Del. Anne Kaiser, D-Montgomery County, said.

That last speaker– the 72nd vote– was cast by Del. Tiffany Alston who helped kill the same-sex marriage bill last year. Her support was enough for a very different outcome this year.

The same-sex marriage bill will now go to the Senate where a similar bill passed last year.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are vowing to petition the measure to referendum, putting it before the voters in November.

More from Meghan McCorkell
  • Sue Keller

    Why can’t individual citizens vote on this? My delegate doesn’t agree with me and is voting against same-sex marriage in Maryland. He’s not representing my views at all.

    • Joan

      LOL right, and I’m sure there are people in your district that AGREE with him, so if he voted your way they’d be complaining here that he didn’t represent them! What do you want? Someone’s always going to be unhappy. The Delegates have to take SOME stand either way. Jeeze.

    • Mikeb

      Because the rights of a minority should NEVER be put to popular vote. Prop. 8 in California, even though narrowly passing with the popular vote, was ruled unconstitutional, because it pertains to the law and not to religion.

      • Matt

        Mike – are rights better in the hands of politicians who use the controversy to accomplish their will?

    • wllharrington

      Your delegate is voting for the MAJORITY of his costituents not individuals. Have you forgotten that we are supposed to be a country where the rights and wishes of the majority take precedence over those of the minorities. We have forgotten this basic principal.

      • Pharmer

        willharrington, you are wrong. We live in a country where the rights of minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority. It was one of the key principles of our founders, and, in my opinion, one of the more brilliant ones.

  • Kurt Gladsky

    I would vote on this the same way God would. No.

    • team8

      I would vote the same way Jesus would. Yes.

    • Brooks N.

      Hey Kurt, thank GOD I found you! Can you please give me some inside stock advise, or maybe tomorrow’s lotto numbers? Ya know, because you know God and all. Also, if you could point me in the direction of the Holy Grail, I would totally owe you one!

      • think about it


    • Tina H

      I would vote on this the same way God would. Yes.

    • Rob Edwards


      God Destroyed 2 Cities for this Same Reason!

      • think about it

        But every city in the world, every tribal village, every “red light district” since then has been s-a-f-e safe. Why is that? I am super curious.

    • In-process Paul

      Among the 189 verses that have a form of the word marriage, none speak of or hint at same-sex relationships. About same-sex relationships, God says, among other negative references, in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans: Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

      • Pharmer

        God didn’t say squat. The Bible was written by fallible men (and only men). It is a collection of fables, parables, allegory and questionable history that is a reflection of the culture, superstitions and customs at the times it was written.

        You have every right to believe whatever you wish. You have NO right to force me, or any other person, to conform to the rules of your chosen beliefs. Unless someone is trying to force you into a same-sex marriage against your will you really don’t have a stake in this issue, and I really do not understand why you think you have any right to tell hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, unrelated consenting adults whom they should marry. It is, frankly, none of your business.

        There is no moral or ethical justification for denying the basic civil right of marriage to same-sex couples. I don’t give a rat’s patoot what you think your God might think about it.

  • adraine

    i agree with Kurt. God made it man and woman ONLY!!!!!!!

    • Charlotte Kennison

      On the same page of the bible where god said that he also said no to pork and planting two seeds in the same spot. Also your religion has no business standing in the way of my rights as an American citizen. I am an atheist so according to my beliefs god has no opinion on the matter and should stay out of this debate.

      • Manoj

        Actually, I read your story a few weeks ago as I smlubted upon your website it was such a God thing ! Your story is incredible and I love how God has filled my life with such amazing people, testimonies and hope for the future. I look so forward to the day when I can close this chapter of my life and move on to the next to the day when my marriage is reconciled and healed. However, as I have been reminded numerous times, there are no shortcuts so today, I am content in where I am. I have to trust that God knows what He is doing and just enjoy each day of life He chooses to give me. Thank you for your amazing, resourceful website! I love the comment, Our divorce didn’t work out . It rarely does it seems divorce only trades one set of problems for a different set and the implications can last for generations! I would love to hear you and your wife speak in person sometime in the future! Thanks again!

      • Matt

        Hi Charlotte,
        As an atheist how can you appose a god if he doesn’t exist?

      • In-process Paul

        Hi Charlotte,

        I do not really mean this as a smart-alec reply but as a sincere question: Using the rules of logic, can you prove that god/God does not exist? (This would imply that you have been everywhere at all times in the universe. I believe that, if you will honestly search, you will find that a personal, loving, sovereign God will reveal Himself to you.

        Love, In-process Paul

      • Nathan


        First off it’s not up to the non believer of a magical theory, with no empirical evidence to support it’s claims, to find the evidence to disprove those wild claims. That burden is solely on the one making the supernatural claims. Which you are.

        Second, Atheists don’t claim there is in fact no God. Atheists just believe that no evidence exists that support those claims. We use the same method for verifying what we know as truth and reality that you would use if someone came to you and claimed a 100 foot tall Squirrel just spoke to them and told them to tell you that God wants you to give them all of your money and possessions. You’d 1st say “Yeah right” and then you’d say “okay show me this squirrel”.

        Most Atheists I know are very open minded and not absolutists when it comes to the Universe and spirituality, etc. We just require a certain standard of proof.

  • adh

    Let’s put all marriages up for a vote.

  • Jessica Ward

    hmmm .. . . . i love how so many claim to KNOW what God would want LOL

    • Bonnie Grady

      Maybe Sarah Palin told them what God said.

  • Jessica Ward

    Maybe we should BAN DIVORCE while were at it, i dont think God likes that ;)

  • Judy Fox

    I vote that all heterosexual marriages that have not conceived a child should be voided and all parties involved put into forced labor camps for denying the law of “The Marriage Creator” with evil fornication. ESPECIALLY if they prevented conception by sheathing their members with prophalactics or “allowed” their women to obtain some sort of pill that would supress the fruit of their loins.

    • Courage

      That’s fabulous Judy Fox!

    • Sue Keller

      Still laughing…..

  • Matt

    I hope people will see pat the hype of these bills. What about the Governor’s amendment that would eliminate the people’s right to vote on the issue. Forcing it through politically so a referendum is no longer an option?
    It is amazing that politicians play out the controversy, therefore pitting the people against each other and using that as an opportunity to accomplish their will.
    The people should vote on this, and not leave it in the hand of politicians.

    • Sue Keller

      Geez, I cannot keep up with the news….so there will never be an opportunity for voters to decide this issue, instead of the delegates?

    • AA res.

      I believe the amendment is too allow the people to vote on a referendum in Nov..In california the successful referendum against gay marriage was reversed because gay marriage was allowed and performed before the referendum was voted on.This eliminates those lawsuits in Maryland.Though I did sign a referendum against illegal tuition in maryland I really don’t have a dog in this fight, I’ll just sit back and accept the outcome whichever way it goes.

    • Pharmer

      Matt, I’ll make a deal with you. You tell me which of your civil rights you are willing to forfeit if a majority decides you don’t deserve it, and I’ll consider allowing you to vote on my right to marry.

      Do you think you should have to ask every registered voter if you can legally marry the (presumably) opposite-sex person whom you love and with whom you wish to share your life? If not, why the hell do you think I should have to ask you if I can marry the person whom I love and with whom I will spend the rest of my life?

      And, don’t even try that “marriage is for children” canard. As long as infertile people can marry, or people who do not wish to have children can marry, that argument is rendered moot.

  • Mikeb

    I would vote on this the same way God would. Yes.

  • frank coffee

    Let the people decide once and for all,then let’s move on.

    • Joan

      Sure. Then we’ll take another vote in 15-20 years once the majority of bigots die off.

      • sick of liberals

        Joan, it would seem it is you that has the inferiority complex, equality WAS at place before the great Gay Marriage Movement, we all had the same rules to play by, but same sex partners suddenly felt “discriminated” and a “minority”. That inferiorority complex known as “I am a minority, change the rules to suit me” card is at play here.

        It used to be that same sex couples (when they were REALLY the target of persecution) disregarded concepts such as “marriage” because it was not in tune with the same sex lifestyle. Now, with PC culture, anyone who can claim a “minority status” is a victim and we need to change the rules for them.

        That “wave” you speak of, Joan, is not as strong as you think if you need your opposition “to die off”, your words. You are admitting that the “wave” is really weak and unfounded.

      • Jessica Ward

        hell yes so true!!!

      • sick of liberals

        What bigots? Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly bigoted, people can makes whatever choices in their life they wish, and with the longstanding definition of marriage that means if you are in a same sex relationship marriage is not an option. Same sex couple have existed for decades, why now the PC push for marriage equality? Those same couples are not legally denied their rights to live as they wish, so where is the oppression?

        As a single person I am not allowed the same rights as married people, so can we have a Same Person marriage bill so I am not the victim of bigoted married folks?

        People have the right to disagree with public measures if they wish, it is this bu!!sh!t PC garbage that makes disagreeing with PC notions bigotry.

      • sick of liberals

        Joan, your side of the argument must be really weak if you have to rely on the people who disagree with you to “die off”.

        More liberal logic, agree with me or ypu should die.

      • Tim

        @sick of liberals: well said. do you think this will open the door to the legitimization of other types of “marriages” such as >2 partners, or asymmetric unions (eg, polygamy)?

      • Joan

        It’s only a matter of time before equality reigns. Flounder like a fish if you will, but you can’t stop the wave : ) I guess after this you all will have to find another group of people to be superior to. Recent events involving birth control suggest to me that you’ve run out of new targets and are about to take aim at what we’ve already accomplished, starting with women.

  • Steve M.


  • Steve M.

    As a former viewer and “fan” of WBAL-TV, congrats to WJZ (and WMAR)-TV for being the 1st Balto news outlets to report this “breaking news”. So long WBAL-tv, YOU are NO LONGER the “ones” to watch!

  • professional logician

    The “law of complimentarity,” outlines how, within God’s Law and the natural law, men and women, biologically, are different, yet complimentary. “Gay marriage” is a misuse of the sexual capacity, an oxymoron, meaning an inherent contradiction in terms, and a violation of objective truth, natural law, God’s Law, and the law of complimentarity. Two consituent parts define marriage, namely, unitive and procreative. Unitive is when two become one, which is an impossibility within “gay marriage” because the law of complimentarity has been undermined. Secondly, marriage includes openness towards procreation, whereby neither partner elicits an artificial barrier. Obviously, “gay marriage” exemplifies that barrier and thereby nullifies any procreative opportunities. Finally, marriage is not a construct whereby we can vote and define it as we choose. The analogy frequently employed is that one can, theoretically, find people who may collaborate and decide that they will vote that a key is instead a lock, but this illogical voting outcome does not change the ontological fact that a key is a key and not a lock. The ill advised vote changes nothing, and the same argument applies toward marriage itself.

    • Pharmer

      Nice try. The “law of complimentarity” is something you folks made up so you don’t have to be truly honest about the reasons for your opposition to marriage equality. You have invented a code word for genitalia.

      “Complimentarity” is just bull scat. Keep your mind out of the intimate activities of other consenting adults. I think you’ll find your life to be much more content if you stop your busybody mental voyeurism.

    • Brooks N.

      These ideas are based on a narrow definition of marriage – mostly in a religious perspective. Religious marriage is not the only kind of marriage. Two men or women can unify as well. Using your logic, men and women who cannot physically procreate shouldn’t be afforded the right to marry.

      Unlike your analogy of a lock and key, whereby locks and keys are tangible objects, marriage is not tangible, therefore, we can decide what marriage means. Your argument is apples to oranges – it does not make sense.

      Furthermore, God’s law is not what should be considered here. We are man, we are not divine, we make our laws based on the state, not on the church. Our founding fathers had good reasons for separation of church and state. The separation exists for slightly different reasons now, but the logic is the same.

      • TRUTH_LovR

        The Constitution and its 1s Amendment grant the citizens of this nation “freedom OF religion”; not freedom FROM religion.
        Furthermore, there are three elements that make us a great nation: Patriotism, Morality, and Spirituality. The latter two deal with “proper behavior”. We need only our minds, religion aside, to determine what is normal and natural: that is, proper behavior. Thus, it should be intuitively obvious that “marriage” should remain defined as the union between a man and woman. Same-sex unions are, and will always remain, “unnatural” relationships, even if same-sex partners have a “civil” marriage license. The recent bill approval was based more on “power politics” than morality and common sense. Onward to the November referendum which will fix this terrible mistake!

      • professional logician

        Brooks N,
        Thank you for your reply. It is impossible for God’s existence to be absolutely proven (or disproven). Some people have more evidence for existence and some less, and the scale tips towards one side or the other throughout life. Thus, (since there is the possibility that God does not exist) natural law can exist independently of God’s law. Therefore, by specifying both “God’s Law AND the natural law,” I have indeed broadened my scope to a non-religious perspective (natural law). You are correct–two men or women can unify; but, according to your logic, so can three men or women; so can one man/three women unify; etc. However, if you reject natural law, then yes, you can define marriage as anything you posit (positive law).

        You are correct–“marriage” is not a tangible object, but “man” and “woman” are.

        You do not need to be divine to put into consideration God’s law (since the law is by God but for humans). Those who believe in the existence of God (defined as infinite, Truth, Light, etc.) use God’s (infinite/perfect) omniscience as their main source of conscience-formation, versus any other source which must therefore be finite/imperfect (eg., man, society) [infinity = infinity]. Thus, a believer in God will make decisions/actions (votes) based on a conscience formed in such a manner.


  • Paul

    I think professional logician says it all. Eternal truths cannot be legislated away. If the House of Delegates votes that the sky is purple, it will still and always be blue.
    The fact that we can no longer discern eternal truths as a nation is a sad and depressing reality

  • Brian

    These law makers have pushed and pushed this bill until the no’s got bullied into voting yes.
    just anazed me a referendum was called for the people to decide. Was O’Malley and his band of bullly’s scared of a no vote.
    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and has been from the begining of time. What right does this generation have to change that.
    Look back in history and read what happened to the Roman Empire. The United States is heading in the same direction

  • Food for thought

    It is so interesting to me that we can not see clearly and can so easily misinterpret the sacred text. I would like to encourage you bible scholars to read the creation story(s) and see where God established marriage as an institution. I believe the text reads GOD BROUGHT THE WOMAN TO ADAM TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD SAY. AND ADAM SAID SHE IS FLESH OF MY FLESH …. AND FOR THIS CAUSE…. Unless we consider Adam to be God!, let give the credit to whom it is due. My question… Did God really say anything about marriage, or do we want to believe that for the sake of arguement? Read first the KJV and then others. I am just saying.

  • The Truth is The Truth

    Hey Food for Thought,

    Here’s what the King James Version says:

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[1](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[2](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

    Just Saying!

    • Brooks N.

      Ok, and do you really believe the world started with Adam and Eve? That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Leviticus also says: you can’t eat fruit from a tree until five years after it’s planted, you can’t eat rare meat, you can’t get tattoos, and you can’t have sex with a woman while she is “unclean from menstruation.” I mean, come on, Leviticus is ridiculous. These “truths” were really designed to maximize agriculture at the time, because that was how people preserved their living. If men had sex with men, there wouldn’t be children to work the land. Also, back then, if you ate rare meat, you would probably die. It was simple preservation and culture, not truth.

  • Scott

    The government needs to get out of the business of marriage! Problem solved. The government should not be dictating to me what is acceptable or moral.

  • Another take

    Let it go to referendum–just like the Dream Act!

  • TRUTH_LovR

    What a letdown! Power politics, rather than the “will of the people” prevails. Onward now to the November referendum to fix this mistake.

  • Henry

    Well now that they have the important stuff out of the way maybe they can start in on the little things. Geez I can’t believe we pay these guys to vote on things like this

  • D King

    All this talk of what the bible says and you know better than others what God would do or what he thinks is meaningless to those who do not believe in the invisible man in sky. You can keep on quoting and interpreting all day, but It should have no bearing on the establishment of laws for the general population. Save it for church where you are with like-minded people and are free to believe as you choose.

    • Tim

      Sorry, those of us who have seen more evidence for than against the existence of God will be living life and voting with a conscience formed by God’s tenets. If you don’t like that, then you may go to a country that was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

  • Food for thought

    Hello The truth is the truth!

    My point exactly! It,s the “KJV”. Again, the question is: Did God say it or is it first Adam and then King James! Both men!

    It’s okay to have laws, guidelines and disciplines established by humankind. And we must learn to distinguish the voice of God from the voices of men.

    Just a thought.

  • LEE M

    Now maybe all the liberals will leave the great common wealth of PA and move back to the sludge hole of Maryland.

    • Joan

      PA isn’t exactly the un-“sludge”-ist state, so you may want to revise that. PA has nasty, crumbling roads, dirty, gray, crime-blighted cities, sits next to the sludgiest US state, NJ, is mired in dirty coal and fracking. MD has its share of sludge, but I wouldn’t go comparing that to PA- it’s a battle to lose.

  • LEE M

    That is because in PA in more than two roads to maintain. And remember in PA, we cling to our guns and religion.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Track Weather On The Go With Our App!

Listen Live