Maryland State Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman is planning to sponsor a bill that “would legalize civil unions for all Marylanders, regardless of sexual orientation.”  Kittleman’s sponsored bill would grant the same rights and benefits already granted to different sex unions.  Kittleman is taking the proper approach on this by using the term civil union as opposed to marriage.  It is away of meeting the demands of same sex marriage by offering equal benefits, but still appeasing those who fight for the “sanctity of marriage”, all the while trying to keep the government out of marriage.  His own words describe this better than I can:

“If government gets out of the marriage business and focuses on civil unions, then I’m hopeful that some of the controversy [surrounding gay] marriage will dissipate, and we can focus on civil unions for everybody while preserving the sanctity of marriage”

Jason Kuznicki, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, recently released an intriguing report looking at federal marriage policy.  To read the report in its entirety, visit here.  The main idea of the report focuses on the idea that federal marriage policy needs to undergo a change, a change that sees less involvement in the personal lives of citizens.

Kuznicki does an excellent job of pointing out the legal aspects of marriage.  He makes an argument that the federal government should not even have its hands in marriage at all.  The first point to this argument is that there is nothing expressly written in the Constitution that allows the federal government to enact any sort of legislation, rules, etc., and that the Tenth Amendment mandates that this issue should reside within state governmental power.

A second point to his argument goes back to the necessity of viewing civil marriages and religious marriages as inherently independent from one another.  Where religious marriages involve ceremony and spirituality, a civil marriage relates to recognition by state governments of a union and all the related entitlements such as, legislation, tax obligations, etc.  While both of these aspects of marriage are generally performed at the same time, it is still possible to have one or the other separately:  “Just as there are civil oaths and religious oaths, civil offices and religious offices, and civil laws and religious there, there are also civil marriages and religious ones.”  Since there is no specific language separating the two within federal marriage policy, it is assumed that policies apply to both religious and civil marriages, which directly goes against the principle of separation of church and state.

Another issue that arises in the report is the question of who should be granted the right to marry.  Time and time again the Supreme Court has upheld that the right to marry belongs to all citizens.  In the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), which dealt with the issue of inter-racial marriage, it was said that:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.  Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

This passage shows that marriage should not be denied to any citizen.    It is, however, still a shame that this case has not provided the proper precedence to legalize gay marriage once and for all.

Kuznicki also offers a solution to this federal marriage policy issue:  rewrite federal law so as to refer to “civil marriage” in all cases, to show that marriage law is independent from churches and faith communities.  To coincide with the Constitution, leave the issue of marriage policy to state governments.  For those who oppose the idea of equal marriage for all, based on the fact that they do not want their tax dollars supporting something they do not believe in, the counter argument stands in the reverse, why should same-sex partnerships also have their tax dollars used for something they are not a part of?  Lastly, state governments should be protecting every citizen as best it can, even with marriage protection.  “If the state is to act in this area, it must be only to protect and preserve one of the institutions that give human life its dignity and value-an institution without which we could hardly be called ‘free’ at all.”

Wyoming State Representative Cathy Connolly, a democrat, is currently writing two separate bills, one that would legalize gay marriage in the state, and a second that would legalize civil unions.  These bills are being written in response to an amendment to ban gay marriage.  Currently, Wyoming is the only state that recognizes gay marriages and civil unions that have been performed out of state.  This amendment would also stop that recognition.

Representative Connolly, as the only openly gay lawmaker in Wyoming, believes that gay marriage would be best, but realizes that legalization of civil unions would most likely receive more support than a marriage bill.  In 2009, the state House voted against allowing a referendum to ban gay marriage to appear on the ballot.  If the marriage bill were to pass, Wyoming would become the sixth state to pass such legislation.  Along the same lines, Wyoming would be the third state, following Illinois and New Jersey, in enacting a civil union bill.

With the New Year, two different states look to bring marriage equality to its citizens:  Rhode Island and New York.

In Rhode Island, newly elected Governor Lincoln Chafee called for state lawmakers to initiate quick passage of marriage equality legislation.  Governor Chafee, Rhode Island’s first Independent governor and former Republican U.S. Senator, “has been a long time supporter of same-sex marriage.”

Following Governor Chafee’s charge to state legislators, State Representative Art Handy, a democrat, and State Senator Rhoda Perry, also a democrat, look to reintroduce marriage equality bills this year.  Senator Perry has 7 co-sponsors supporting her while Representative Handy has garnered the support of 27 co-sponsors.  On the other side, these bills face possible opposition from Senate President, democrat Teresa Weed; although she has pledged that she would not block any such bill.  Rhode Island National Organization for Marriage executive director Chris Plante is pushing to have the issue brought to a popular vote with a ballot initiative, but bill supporters are optimistic of success.

If lawmakers succeed, Rhode Island will join fellow New England states Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, all of which have passed similar legislation allowing such unions.

Meanwhile, in New York, newly elected Governor Andrew Cuomo made a point to call for marriage equality this year in his first State of the State address.  In his own words Governor Cuomo says:  “We believe in justice for all, then let’s pass marriage equality this year once and for all.”  While no bills have yet to be considered, Republican majority leader Dean Skelos has already promised to allow vote on such a bill.

Governor Cuomo is already making strides to bring full equality to LGBT New Yorkers by continuing the executive order signed by former governor, David Paterson, which prohibits any discrimination on the basis of gender expression or identity, as well as appointing Alphonso David to the newly created position of deputy secretary for civil rights.

Best of luck to both states in their fight to bring about marriage equality.

Evan Wolfson, long time marriage equality advocate and founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry joined with Jon Cowan, president of the moderate think tank Third Way to draw attention to a “quiet revolution” within the ranks of the Republican Party.  Writing for the Los Angeles Times, they pointed out the GOP’s relative silence on the issue of same-sex marriage in 2010, and the growing list of conservative leaders, from former solicitor general and hero of Perry v. Schwarzenegger Ted Olson to the extensive guest list at former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman’s fundraiser coming out in support of marriage equality.

What’s driving this insiders’ insurrection? Perhaps a sense that a libertarian-leaning belief in fully extending the freedom to marry to all Americans does not, in fact, clash with a conservative commitment to holding together the social fabric, as marriage entails personal responsibility and social stability. Or perhaps these GOP leaders are beginning to see an alignment of their rhetoric about individual liberty with public opinion; in the last month, two national polls, by CNN and the Associated Press, showed that a majority of Americans nationwide now support marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

The implications of such a historic shift in the GOP establishment’s stance on marriage should not be underestimated. For Republicans, it means they could become less moored to their socially conservative base and may get back in touch with the cautious but forward-looking American political center that is vital to GOP hopes of cobbling together a governing majority. For the country, it is evidence that we are inching ever closer to a national consensus that gay and lesbian couples should have the freedom to marry under the law.

Click here to read the whole thing.