Subject: Testimony in the Maryland State Senate

[almaty 19]

>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:11:25 EST

>

>Monday in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment

>to

>prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested

>to

>testify. He did so.

>

>At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said: "Mr Raskin, my

>Bible

>says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say

>about

>that?"

>

>Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand

>on

>the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand

>on

>the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

>

>The room erupted into applause.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:11:25 EST

Monday in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify. He did so.

At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said: "Mr Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swore to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

Love it!

Not that I'd expect the good Senator to actually understand what the good professor said.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The story was on the baltimore sun website but appears to have been pulled. Here is the text I pulled out of google cache....

Despite rejection of a similar bill by House lawmakers last month, a Senate committee took up yesterday the emotionally charged debate over whether Maryland should ban same-sex marriage in its constitution.

Clergy, constitutional law experts and children of gay parents were among those who packed the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee room to speak out on the issue.

The marriage debate dominated the opening weeks of the legislature after a Baltimore judge sided with 19 gay men and women, ruling that Maryland's 33-year-old law defining marriage between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The discussion shows few signs of dying down.

Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Republican who represents Harford and Cecil counties, engaged in an impassioned debate with James Raskin, a constitutional law professor from American University, over the influence of the Bible on modern law.

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God - that is my belief," she said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals."

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

Some in the room applauded, which led committee chairman Sen. Brian E. Frosh, a Democrat from Montgomery County, to call for order. "This isn't a football game," he said.

While the failed House measure included a ban on civil unions, which opponents argued was too broad, the Senate bill would ask voters only whether same-sex marriage should be banned.

Some proponents of the Senate bill, which would allow voters to decide in the November election whether to prohibit same-sex marriage, said it has a better chance than a House measure killed earlier this session.

But the sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican representing Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he believes Democratic Senate leaders would prefer to ignore the bill because placing the question of gay marriage on the ballot in an election year could drive up turnout from conservatives, possibly helping Republican candidates in the fall.

"We have the support. The key is getting a vote," said Haines.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Agent Smith

[almaty 19]

thanks arijit....

[I'm Gone 60]

But the sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican representing Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he believes Democratic Senate leaders would prefer to ignore the bill because placing the question of gay marriage on the ballot in an election year could drive up turnout from conservatives, possibly helping Republican candidates in the fall.

That is 100% correct. The Democratic leadership is going to do anything they can to keep this issue of the ballot in November, since the Republican Governor is up for reelection and a U.S. Senate seat is open.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But the sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican representing Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he believes Democratic Senate leaders would prefer to ignore the bill because placing the question of gay marriage on the ballot in an election year could drive up turnout from conservatives, possibly helping Republican candidates in the fall.

That is 100% correct. The Democratic leadership is going to do anything they can to keep this issue of the ballot in November, since the Republican Governor is up for reelection and a U.S. Senate seat is open.

So? If that helps prevent a bit of tyranny of the majority over a minority, then it's all good.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But the sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican representing Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he believes Democratic Senate leaders would prefer to ignore the bill because placing the question of gay marriage on the ballot in an election year could drive up turnout from conservatives, possibly helping Republican candidates in the fall.

That is 100% correct. The Democratic leadership is going to do anything they can to keep this issue of the ballot in November, since the Republican Governor is up for reelection and a U.S. Senate seat is open.

So? If that helps prevent a bit of tyranny of the majority over a minority, then it's all good.

Wow we're really stretching the meaning of the word tyranny here, aren't we? You'd think they were suggesting that gays be gassed or something. Talk about hyperbole.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But the sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican representing Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he believes Democratic Senate leaders would prefer to ignore the bill because placing the question of gay marriage on the ballot in an election year could drive up turnout from conservatives, possibly helping Republican candidates in the fall.

That is 100% correct. The Democratic leadership is going to do anything they can to keep this issue of the ballot in November, since the Republican Governor is up for reelection and a U.S. Senate seat is open.

So? If that helps prevent a bit of tyranny of the majority over a minority, then it's all good.

Wow we're really stretching the meaning of the word tyranny here, aren't we? You'd think they were suggesting that gays be gassed or something. Talk about hyperbole.

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

Edited March 24, 2006 by ET-US2004

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

I disagree. That is not tyranny.

[I'm Gone 60]

But the sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Haines, a Republican representing Baltimore and Carroll counties, said he believes Democratic Senate leaders would prefer to ignore the bill because placing the question of gay marriage on the ballot in an election year could drive up turnout from conservatives, possibly helping Republican candidates in the fall.

That is 100% correct. The Democratic leadership is going to do anything they can to keep this issue of the ballot in November, since the Republican Governor is up for reelection and a U.S. Senate seat is open.

So? If that helps prevent a bit of tyranny of the majority over a minority, then it's all good.

Wow we're really stretching the meaning of the word tyranny here, aren't we? You'd think they were suggesting that gays be gassed or something. Talk about hyperbole.

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

It's already part of Federal law regarding federal benefits, but unlike the things you support, i.e. abortion, Federal law can't possible apply in this case too.

Public Law 104-199

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect

thereof

``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

I disagree. That is not tyranny.

We have a different understanding of that term, then. What we are looking at, though, is a clear majority looking to effectively denying a minority equal protection under the law. That's wrong in my book.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

I disagree. That is not tyranny.

We have a different understanding of that term, then. What we are looking at, though, is a clear majority looking to effectively denying a minority equal protection under the law. That's wrong in my book.

Wrong, yes. Not all that is wrong counts as tyranny, IMO.

[Mirorgate 0]

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

I disagree. That is not tyranny.

We have a different understanding of that term, then. What we are looking at, though, is a clear majority looking to effectively denying a minority equal protection under the law. That's wrong in my book.

Wrong, yes. Not all that is wrong counts as tyranny, IMO.

Democracy is tyranny. Of the majority for the majority. Everyone is equal, until someone makes themselves special and different.... then everyone hates them, because they are no longer similar and equal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They are being denied that which is afforded to the majority by that very majority. That's tyranny (aka oppressive power) of the majority over a minority. Tyranny does not imply violence or death.

I disagree. That is not tyranny.

We have a different understanding of that term, then. What we are looking at, though, is a clear majority looking to effectively denying a minority equal protection under the law. That's wrong in my book.

Wrong, yes. Not all that is wrong counts as tyranny, IMO.

No. Not all wrong is tyranny. Tyranny is when the minority loses the protection of the law. That's what using the majority to outlaw same-sex marriage is about: To deny a mnority of the population the equal protection of the law for no other reason than a homophobic majority being able to do so.

Same sex marriage is the early 21st century equivalent of the late 20th century interracial marriage in the US. Nothing more and nothing less. After all, there was (and probably still is) a majority available to continue to block (or block yet again) interracial marriages in many states. That doesn't make it a legitimate goal to pursue.

Edited March 25, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Jasman0717 9]