Maryland Same-Sex Marriage Bills: So What Happened At The Hearing?
Two committees from the Maryland House of Delegates heard debate Friday from lawmakers and lawyers, laypeople and laity, pastors and priests —  both for and against two highly-contested same-sex civil marriage bills during a marathon debate that lasted ten hours. One bill would recognize the right of lesbian and gay couples to marry, making their relationships equal and legal under the law, the other would impose a constitutional ban on all same-sex marriages in the state of Maryland, codifying discrimination and second class citizenship directly into the constitution.
No vote has taken place yet.
Governor Martin O’Malley, who, like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, sponsored the same-sex marriage equality bill and delivered opening remarks as Friday’s hearing began. O’Malley is certain to sign a same-sex marriage equality bill were it to make its way through the full House and Senate. A similar bill last year passed the Senate but not the House. Currently there is not a majority for or against same-sex marriage in Maryland.
“This bill balances equal protection of individual civil marriage rights with the important protection of religious freedom for all,” O’Malley testified.
“It is not right or just that the children of gay couples should have lesser protections than the children of other families in our state,†O’Malley added, according to a report in The Washington Blade. “Nor would it be right to force religious institutions to conduct marriages that conflict with their own religious beliefs and teachings.â€
Testimony against same-sex marriage was often heated and vociferous, relying primarily on bible-based rhetoric, ignorance, and flawed ideas of same-sex relationships, along with flawed and refuted studies, while testimony for same-sex marriage relied on primarily on legal arguments, personal experiences, and included a great many religious leaders who support same-sex marriage.
But not all religious leaders who testified were supportive of gay marriage. Nor were some of their congregants.
“All these ministers talking about their homosexuals — let’s go chapter and verse and see who’s a liar,” one anti-gay citizen yelled, preaching from the Bible, adding, “homosexuals destroy the foundation of civilization,” and “the homosexuals will be cast in a lake of fire.” His testimony lasted almost five minutes.
Another arguing against marriage equality claimed that “lifestyle choice” leads to HIV/AIDS and therefore Maryland should ban same-sex marriage. The ignorance and irony of his comments escaped him.
“I’m not a ‘homo-phobiac’ nor a ‘xeno-phobiac.’ People who have special propensities can do what they will,” Delegate Emmett Burns said. “Same-sex marriage is bad for people of my church and bad for the state … I don’t want your protection … The law is that marriage is between a man and a WO-MAN,” he proclaimed. “You cannot protect our churches – you don’t know how. Gays and lesbians are protected because they can hide their sexual orientation – they are already protected,” adding, “Children are being used in this process. Children are being used for the purpose of same-sex marriage.”
Others who testified against marriage equality were professional gay-haters, like one Alliance Defense Fund attorney who quoted Aristotle, ironically, perhaps, not realizing that Aristotle was gay and praised same-sex unions.
But Delegate Simmons might have been the hero of the day. The Washington Post wrote that he “peppered a panel of religious leaders opposed to the bill with questions about the source of their opposition. Simmons suggested the only reasons were rooted in a desire to impose their religious beliefs on others.”
“I have heard no evidence at all how same-sex marriage effects your families, the church. . . . There’s not a syllable of evidence. You just don’t like it,†Simmons said.
Simmons also challenged another citizen who testified vehemently against marriage equality and claimed he was concerned about the future of “traditional marriage,” and worried because he believed the institution of marriage was in trouble.
“Last year we made divorce easier, did you come to testify against that?,” Simmons asked, receiving a squirming answer that meant “no.”
“We’ve had bills dealing with domestic violence, have you ever come to testify about them?,” Simmons continued. The respondent, stunningly, claimed he saw no relationship between domestic violence and preserving marriages.
Simmons also told a religious leader preaching biblical concepts against gay marriage, that he himself is a straight man, married 41 years, and said,  “[Gay] people who want to get married have a right to be left alone from people like you.”
Governor O’Malley, who had kicked off the heating at 1:10 PM, returned at 11:20 PM in time to hear the final comments. The hearing ended at 11:40 PM. It is unclear but a committee vote might take place as soon as Monday.
For additional reporting, read John Riley’s report at MetroWeekly,  and Lou Chibbaro Jr.’s report at The Washington Blade.
Image via Equality Maryland via Twitter.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Roughly 140 Environmental Protection Agency employees have been placed on administrative leave after signing a letter warning of political interference in the agency’s work—prompting critics to accuse the Trump administration of ignoring their First Amendment rights.
Calling the letter “a remarkable rebuke of the agency’s political leadership,” The New York Times reported on Monday that more than 270 EPA employees had signed the public letter “denouncing what they described as the Trump administration’s efforts to politicize, dismantle and sideline the main federal agency tasked with protecting the environment and public health.”
On Thursday, the Times reported that 144 workers had been suspended, other news outlets put the number at 139.
In that public letter, signatories said they are joining in “solidarity with employees across the federal government in opposing this administration’s policies,” and that they “stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.”
READ MORE: ‘Stop Talking’: Johnson Suggests Jeffries Is Lying in Marathon Budget Speech
They detailed their five primary concerns, including, “Undermining public trust,” “Ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters,” “Reversing EPA’s progress in America’s most vulnerable communities,” “Dismantling the Office of Research and Development,” and “Promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being.”
On Thursday, the 140 or so employees who allegedly had signed the letter with their official titles received emails saying they had been placed on leave for two weeks “pending an administrative investigation,” The New York Times reported.
“The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November,” Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson, said in a statement, according to Bloomberg Law News.
“The letter, addressed to EPA head Lee Zeldin, alleged the agency has used its communication platforms to ‘promote misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric,'” Bloomberg added. “One example the signatories cited was a March statement laying out the administration’s deregulatory agenda, in which Zeldin referred to ‘the climate change religion.'”
READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms
Nicole Cantello, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 704, called the move “blatant retaliation,” The Hill reported.
“We don’t swear an oath to the Trump administration, we swear an oath to the Constitution and so we don’t feel like we violated that oath or that we did anything wrong by signing this letter,” she said.
Cantello, on social media, wrote that EPA workers “have the right to freedom of speech, just like every other American.”
Addressing EPA Administrator Zeldin directly, she said: “See you in court.”
Some denounced the administration’s move.
Attorney Mark Zaid, who handles national security and whistleblower cases, wrote: “Apparently retaliation has already begun. This is what defines this Administration.”
He also offered to “provide pro bono consultation to examine current situation.”
The New York Times’ Trip Gabriel asked, “What First Amendment?”
READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
Image of Lee Zeldin via Shutterstock
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, in an apparent attempt to prevent the Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, from passing President Donald Trump’s massive budget bill in the dead of night, has been delivering a speech on the floor for over six hours, and may break the record of 8 hours and 32 minutes set in 2021 by then GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker Johnson reportedly allowed minimal time for debate on what Trump calls his “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” which cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, and forces cuts to Medicare and SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by hundreds of billions of dollars while carving out tax breaks that largely favor the wealthy. An estimated 17 million people could lose insurance as a result of the legislation.
Once Leader Jeffries concludes his remarks—which he began around 5 AM—Johnson will put the bill to a final vote, and he’s anxious to get the legislation to the President’s desk before Trump’s arbitrary July 4 deadline.
READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms
“What is contemplated in this one big, ugly bill is wrong,” Leader Jeffries said, as NBC News reported. “It’s dangerous, and it’s cruel, and cruelty should not be either the objective or the outcome of legislation that we consider here in the United States House of Representatives.”
Jeffries also called it “cruel” to cut Medicaid.
“Republicans are trying to take a chain saw to Social Security, a chain saw to Medicare, a chain saw to Medicaid, a chain saw to the health care of the American people, a chain saw to nutritional assistance for hungry children, a chain saw to farm country and a chain saw to vulnerable Americans,” Jeffries added.
Speaker Johnson, speaking to reporters, appeared displeased.
“If Hakeem will stop talking, we’ll, we’ll get the job done for the American people,” Johnson, using the Democratic Leader’s first name, told reporters.
“It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the truth,” Johnson claimed. “So he’s really spinning a long tale in there, but we’re excited. The people will see the effect of this bill—the extraordinary legislation.”
Johnson offered no evidence to support his accusation.
READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
“It’s going to get the economy humming again, really, at a record pace, and it will help every American,” he added.
“So the sooner we can get to it, the sooner the Democrats will stop talking, we’ll get this bill done for the people, and we’re really excited about it.”
Critics blasted Speaker Johnson.
Walter Kimbrough, a three-time HBCU president, responded by posting a meme quoting the famous historian Alexis de Tocqueville, that reads: “It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Speaker Johnson: “If Hakeem would stop talking, we’ll get the job done for the American people. It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the truth. So he’s really spinning a long tale in there.” pic.twitter.com/ih931XJnjE
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) July 3, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids
Image via Reuters
Well-known veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is out with a second dire warning about President Donald Trump and the 2026 midterm elections.
Earlier this week, Carville, a political consultant and strategist since the 1970s and now a political commentator, warned that Trump might try to rig the 2026 elections in one way or another—including, he suggested, by possibly trying to cancel them.
On Wednesday night, he offered up another possibility: martial law.
On NewsNation (video below), Carville predicted a “Democratic blowout” in this November’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and that President Trump will be forced to see the writing on the wall.
READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
“I think he’s gonna read the election,” Carville said. “And I think he’s going to see this big, beautiful bill, is about 25 points underwater. It’s going to be 30 points underwater,” Carville added, referring to the Republican budget bill that guts Medicaid and Medicare, and is likely to pass the House and head to Trump’s desk for a July 4 signing.
“He’s going to see a massive defeat coming, and he’s going to try to do anything he can to extricate himself in that defeat,” Carville warned.
“And I would not put it at all past him to try to call martial law or declare that there’s some kind of national emergency in the country, or anything like that, because the hoofprints are coming, you can hear ’em, and they’re gonna get a shellacking in November of ’26.”
READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids
Mediaite noted that “Bill O’Reilly and Stephen A. Smith also joined the panel discussion, with O’Reilly mocking Carville’s mention of ‘martial law,’ calling it a ‘scare tactic’ and arguing the economy will dictate the midterms.”
On Tuesday, Carville spoke about Trump with former CNN journalist Jim Acosta.
“I don’t put anything past him, nothing,” Carville warned. “To try to call the election off, to do anything he can. He can think of things like that that we can’t because we’re not accustomed to thinking like that.”
“You know people come up to me all the time and say, ‘James. I’m really scared,’” Carville told Acosta on “The Jim Acosta Show.”
“I said, ‘you should be, you have every reason to be scared. Don’t kid yourself,’” Carville added.
Watch the video below or at this link.
READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’
‘What First Amendment?’: 140 EPA Workers Suspended After Opposing Trump Agenda
‘Stop Talking’: Johnson Suggests Jeffries Is Lying in Marathon Budget Speech
Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms
Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
