Maryland House sends marriage bill back to committee; no word on what happens next

After three hours of debate on a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the state, Maryland House of Delegates Chairman Del. Joseph Vallario today sent the Civil Marriage Protection Act back to the House’s Judiciary Committee.

The move came during the final reading of the bill. Delegates were expected to vote on the measure today. Supporters were sure of getting only 69 ot 70 of the 71 votes the bill needed to pass in the House. It has already passed in the Senate, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has said he will sign it into law if it reaches his desk.

Immediately after the bill was sent back to committee, the LGBT rights organization Equality Maryland sent out a press release containing statements attributed to “the staff and board of Equality Maryland; Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director, and Charles Butler, board president,” saying that while they are disappointed the House did not pass the measure today, “we are confident we will win in the future.

“With so much at stake today for thousands of Maryland families, we are thankful that our legislative allies have taken such care with this vote. It is best to delay this historic vote until we are absolutely sure we have the votes to win. We look forward to working strategically with our amazing allies in the legislature, and our supporters across the state, to continue to build support for, and win, marriage equality in the Free State,” the Equality Maryland statement said.

I have seen no explanation yet of what happens now with the bill.

 

—  admin

Wyo. lawmakers say gay divorce case highlights need to define marriage

BEN NEARY  |  Associated Press

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Some top Wyoming lawmakers said Friday, Jan. 14 that a same-sex divorce case pending in the state Supreme Court underscores the need to clarify what constitutes legal marriage in the state.

District Judge Keith Kautz of Niobrara County in November dismissed a case in which two women who were married in Canada in 2008 were seeking a divorce in Wyoming. Kautz said state law didn’t give him jurisdiction over ending the marriage. One of the women appealed.

Senate President Jim Anderson, R-Glenrock, and House Speaker Ed Buchanan, R-Torrington, both said in interviews Friday that the Niobrara County case shows that the Legislature needs to clarify state law. Attempts to reach lawyers representing the divorcing couple were unsuccessful.

One provision of Wyoming law says marriage can exist only between one man and one woman. But another provision says the state will recognize valid marriages performed elsewhere.

Currently, performing a same-sex marriage is legal in only a handful of states, mostly in the Northeast.

A proposal pending in the Wyoming Senate would let voters decide whether to amend the state constitution to specify that the state would recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The Senate on Friday sent the measure, Senate Joint Resolution 5, to the Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Cathy Connolly, D-Laramie, a lesbian, has pushed for increased rights for gays and lesbians in the state. She introduced a competing bill Friday, House Bill 143, that would recognize same-sex marriages.

Another House bill would ban same-sex marriages and specify that Wyoming courts wouldn’t have jurisdiction over same-sex marriages.

The House last year voted down a bill that would have allowed voters to decide whether to amend the state constitution to deny recognition of same-sex marriages.

“So often, what we hear from the media and others is that this is a waste of time, and this is not necessary,” Anderson said of addressing the same-sex marriage issue. “I think it deserves a certain amount of time because I think the people of Wyoming want this issue debated. And for the most part, I think the people of Wyoming want an opportunity to vote on that issue.”

Buchanan said the existing state statutes are in conflict.

“Too bad this wasn’t done a year ago,” Buchanan said, adding that would have given the Supreme Court clear direction on how to handle the divorce case.

Buchanan said he believes some state lawmakers want to forbid same-sex marriages in Wyoming because they disagree with the practice.

“I think folks want to protect the traditional notion of what marriage is, and that is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Buchanan said. “But also, they just want this issue to be decided one way or another. So I think it’s just kind of twofold.”

Sen. Curt Meier, R-La Grange, is the main sponsor of the joint resolution that would put the question of whether to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere before Wyoming voters. He said Friday that the pending same-sex divorce case isn’t driving his bill.

“I’m doing this because over the last several years there have been several polls, and the voters of the state of Wyoming have expressed a sincere interest that that’s an issue that they want to vote on, and this will give them an opportunity to do that,” Meier said.

—  John Wright

Church court upholds 3 of 4 charges against Spahr — but not because they wanted to

The Rev. Jane Spahr

The Permanent Judiciary Committee of the Presbytery of the Redwoods of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has released its verdict in the church trial of lesbian minister the Rev. Jane Spahr who had been charged with performing same-sex marriages in violation of the denomination’s Book of Order. The committee voted to uphold three of the four charges against Spahr and to censure her by rebuking, adding that she is “enjoined to avoid such offenses in the future.”

The rebuke and injunction, however, will not be imposed until the final determination in the event that Spahr chooses to appeal the ruling.

In a statement released after the committee’s verdict was announced, Spahr said: “I’m sad for my  church. Think about the mixed-messages they are sending the faithful lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters in our community. Think about the mixed-messages they are sending to the next generation who overwhelmingly embrace God’s amazing hospitality and welcome. A great injustice has been done today.”

The committee voted 4-2 to uphold the charge that Spahr did refer to the same-sex weddings she performed during the five months such unions were legal in California as marriages in violation of church doctrine that declares “…officers  of  the  PCUSA  authorized  to  perform  marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same-sex  ceremony is a marriage.”

The committee also upheld, on votes of 4-2, that Spahr “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience” by performing 15 same-sex marriages during the time those marriages were legal in California, and that the minister “failed to be governed by the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in violation of [her] ordination vows.”

The committee, however, voted 6-0 not to sustain the charge that Spahr “failed to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church” by “intentionally and repeatedly acting in violation of the Book of Order.”

Even in voting to sustain three of the charges against Spahr, the committee appeared to be siding with Spahr to some degree, almost seeming to say that even though she violated the Book of Order, Spahr did the right thing. In other words, the committee seems to say, quite plainly, that they had to uphold the charges because Spahr clearly violated certain sections of the Book of Order, but that they believe that Spahr is right and that the Book of Order is, at least in some cases, wrong.

You can download the full text of the decision in PDF form at RedwoodsPresbytery.org (look under the “Announcements” section on the home page),but here is the part I was describing:

“The Permanent Judicial Commission, in sustaining the first three charges, recognizes that while the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr has indeed performed these marriages, which were and continue to be legal marriages, she did so acting with faithful compassion in accord with W­7.3004. These marriages were legal in the state of California, being civil contracts (W­4.9001), and are different from same-sex ceremonies. The testimonies of those at court clearly demonstrated this difference.

“We commend Dr. Spahr and give thanks for her prophetic ministry that for 35 years has extended support to ‘people who seek the dignity, freedom and respect that they have been denied’” (W­7.4002c), and has sought to redress ‘wrongs against individuals, groups, and peoples in the church, in this nation, and in the world’ ( W­7.4002h).

“In addition, we call upon the church to re­examine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (G­3.0401c) We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the Gospel.”

Later on in the ruling the committee members note although they had to find that Spahr had repeatedly violated the Book of Order and her ordination vows, they also believe that she “has also followed the Book of Order by remembering that our confessions and church is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him.”

And they said that they refused to uphold the charge that Spahr failed to “uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church” because they believe that she should instead be commended for “helping us realize that peace without justice is no peace.”

AND, the committee members expressly asked forgiveness of the same-sex married couples “for the harm that has been and continues to be done to them in the name of Jesus Christ,” urging the Synod and General Assembly levels of the Presbyterian Church to “do what needs to be done to move us as a church forward on this journey of reconciliation.”

—  admin