A Letter to MD Delegate Valentino-Smith
In the process that's trying to move a bill for marriage equality in my home state of Maryland, last week's step was to get the bill out of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee so that it can be debated and voted on by all the delegates. One of my district's delegates, Geraldine Valentino-Smith, sat on that committee. Unfortunately, she voted "No" on the bill in committee. Assuming that perhaps it was a procedural matter of some kind and not a result of misplaced concerns about welcoming marriage equality to Maryland, I've written a second letter to my delegate.
Greetings Ms. Valentino-Smith,
My husband and I noted with dismay that you chose to vote "NO' on reporting the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act (HB 175) out of committee last week. I am happy that it nevertheless made it to the foor for debate and a vote of the entire House.
I am very disappointed that you apparently feel that my relationship with my husband is somehow less deserving of equal treatment under civil law than that of other of your consitutents.
I am particularly disappointed since my vote in your favor seemed to count the same as others' in the last election that sent you to the Maryland Assembly.
There is still time, of course, to record your name in the history books as a person of integrity who supports full equality in Maryland, and vote in favor of full marriage equality in our state.
I encourage you to vote in favor of marriage equality for all your constituents.
Yours,
Jeff Shaumeyer
4 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Monday, 14 March 2011 at 14.47
Permalink
… you apparently feel that my relationship with my husband is somehow less deserving of equal treatment under civil law than that of other of your constituents.
You push the equality line, but I don't think it is a bad thing for society to favor hetero unions over homo unions. We don't have unlimited resources.
One counter response here is, "wealthy gays are willing to pay the price." Okay, I'm fine with that. But it is problematic to have a vanity public good.
on Monday, 14 March 2011 at 16.53
Permalink
I'll await your report on how marriage equality will stretch which resources beyond their limits and then we can work on the practical question of how to save the US economy from the crippling onslaught of marriage between same-sex couples.
on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 at 08.04
Permalink
I don't buy the notion that we should do things just because they're cheap.
I see marriage as in institution to foster the raising and nurturing of children. I think gay marriage dilutes this, but then the institution has been pretty well diluted anyway.
on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 at 11.52
Permalink
"We don't have unlimited resources." / "I don't buy the notion that we should do things just because they're cheap." It must be some sort of Goldilocks argument, so you'll have to tell me what would be just right.
It's fine with me if you see marriage that way — I don't and most of history hasn't, despite the rather active and non-biblical imaginings of some virulent christian propagandists.
If marriage as an institution needs strengthening, the more people who participate in the institution will only make it stronger. If you want to focus on the raising and nurturing of children, keep in mind that some 10 million children are being raised in gay or lesbian households. Think of the children!