Delegate Don Dwyer
A bill to establish same-sex “marriage” in Maryland that apparently had the backing of bigwigs ranking up to the level of Bill Clinton and that had been greased for success by leaders in the state derailed solely because of an uprising by voters, according to a key legislator involved in the battle.
Media coast to coast reported a few days back when the bill failed to collect enough votes despite support from the Democrat-controlled House of Delegates and an even more liberal state Senate.
The measure had been on track for approval and was running under the radar when it swept through the Senate. Then it moved to the state House, where Democrats hold 98 of the 141 seats, and collapsed, said Delegate Don Dwyer, a leader of the opposition to homosexual “marriages.”
Already, same-sex duos can obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, noted the National Conference of State Legislatures.. In some of those places the law has been imposed by judicial fiat.
California’s granting of same-sex “marriage” licenses is pending in the courts. Voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but a federal court is reviewing a lawsuit challenging that.
Dwyer said the Maryland legislation was described to him as a “done deal” by homosexual activists who thought they had lined up support.
The sudden turnaround came after the bill was approved in the Senate and moved to the House, where supporters of traditional marriage have been working on a constitutional amendment for their state.
The first signal of defeat came when a committee chairman ruled that the bill would be held instead of being voted on immediately. Three days later, the bill had failed to advance at all.
The reason, Dwyer said, was the hundreds and thousands of telephone calls, e-mails and other contacts from constituents informing lawmakers of their opposition..
“Nobody thought we could really [stop the bill,]” Dwyer told WND, especially once it advanced – barely – from committee to the House floor.
“It was a tremendous effort to create public pressure that this was not the constituents’ [desire],” he said. “I’ve got to tell you, the black churches were tremendously responsible for stepping up to the plate.”
The calls, e-mails and other contacts from citizens, prompted by church groups, networks and others, changed the bill’s outcome, he said.
“It normally doesn’t play out like this,” he said. “The process itself is typically corrupt. This was through a cooperative effort of a large network of diverse communities.”
The result was that the bill was referred back to committee in a procedural move that is seen as the death knell for the plan this year.
He said promoters of same-sex “marriage” likely were only a handful of votes away from success when their effort hit the roadblock. He said he expects the issue to return, and he expects the people will, too.
“We need to keep up the pressure and build on it,” Dwyer said.
At the same time, he said, work on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman will be intensified.
When voters in states have been given the opportunity to vote directly, 31 times in 31 elections they have rejected same-sex “marriage.”
The Obama administration, however, has renewed its attack on traditional marriage by announcing officials would refuse to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court fights.
Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., since then has suggested that members of Congress might try to cut the budget for Attorney General Eric Holder because of that stance and use the money instead to mount a congressionally directed defense of DOMA.
Probably the hottest battle in the war between marriage definitions is raging in California.
There, state Supreme Court judges created same-sex “marriage” and were immediately rebuffed by voters who adopted Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The dispute then went into federal court, and the judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are considering whether to uphold a decision by a homosexual judge that said voters had no right to amend their own state constitution.
The judge, Vaughn Walker, an open homosexual, in September overruled more than 7 million voters to banish Proposition 8, which had been approved by voters in 2008.
His 136-page ruling said, “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
Walker also wrote:
- “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
- “Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
- “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
- “The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
- “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
- “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”
His decision essentially ignored a warning from California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter, who dissented when his court created same-sex “marriage” in the state.
Walker wrote, “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.
In Iowa, the state Supreme Court had created homosexual “marriage” for the state, and voters responded by firing all three justices who were up for retention in the 2010 election.