The Maryland Model (part two)

In part one I related the Maryland Model in its current state to the 2012 campaign, particularly when considering the battle to repeal the in-state tuition for illegal aliens passed last year by the General Assembly. The bill was petitioned to referendum as opponents turned the trick for the first time in over twenty years in Maryland.

As you should recall, I distilled the idea behind the Colorado Model liberal Democrats used to take over that state into four simpler M words: money, message, media, and mobilization. In this part I assess the overall shape conservatives here in Maryland exist in regarding these four issues – and we definitely need to do some work!

Continue reading “The Maryland Model (part two)”

Where the action was

I’d love to have said I was there, but family has to come first and my parents came from many miles away.

But I was cheered to see the lineup for the Turning the Tides Conference presented by the Maryland Conservative Action Network, as it included a number of luminaries as well as breakout discussions on a number of subjects near and dear to the hearts of conservatives in Maryland and everywhere else, for that matter. Not only that, the event drew over 200 activists from across Maryland and received coverage from both the old and new media outlets. They even had their very own counterprotest from a liberal former member of the House of Delegates.

So it sounds like we had a nice event. But now the question is ‘where do we go from here?’

Continue reading “Where the action was”

Gary Johnson on ‘intolerance’ redux

A couple weeks ago, I commented on the remarks of Presidential candidate and former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson regarding the ‘offensive’ Family Leader Pledge signed by fellow GOP candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

Yesterday I was invited to participate in a blogger conference call with Governor Johnson regarding intolerance as “a formula for Republican defeat.” Unfortunately I couldn’t participate directly but I asked for the transcript knowing this was an issue I’d broached previously.

Perhaps the question closest to the one I would have asked was offered by New Hampshire blogger Skip Murphy of Granite Grok. I’m going to shorten it just a touch for this purpose, though:

I do have a question about your opening statement, on social conservatives.  Certainly the Tea Party is focused on the fiscal issues, but as we all know, social issues often have a fiscal cost to them as well.  If you look at Medicaid, Social Security, other entitlement programs, have an outsized cost to them.  Is it really something that Republicans and conservative Republicans should do?  To concede the social issues to the Democrats and step away from that arena?  And thereby letting them raise the fiscal costs of their agenda, versus fighting for what we believe is our agenda, which is cutting the fiscal costs across the board?

Governor Johnson responded:

Well, if you’re talking about fiscal costs, I don’t know where an intolerance to gays, I don’t know where a woman – where decision making should be taken away from a woman, and I’m talking about abortion – and, that that should be the driving issues of the Republican Party.  And I guess I could go to immigration, and to the xenophobia about immigrants, and there are costs associated with illegal immigration.  I think they should be addressed, but they don’t involve, in my opinion, building a fence, or putting the National Guard arm in arm across the border.  There’s some real, rational steps that can be taken, and really, a win-win situation: immigrants that want to come in to this country to work being allowed to work.  And businesses that would like to take advantage of being able to get workers that they currently can’t get, because of our immigration policies and our welfare policies in this country that have us sitting at home collecting welfare checks, that are just a little bit less money or the same amount of money for doing nothing, as opposed to getting out and getting an entry level job.

Murphy pressed further:

Well, I do notice that you brought up some hot button issues that are near and dear to a lot of Republicans.  But I specifically asked about some of the other entitlements: certainly the ever growing welfare state is a social issue, and it certainly has a high fiscal cost.  So, what is your strategy for bringing that down, and again I ask, is that something the Republicans should just forget about, because…

Johnson interrupted:

No, Skip, I didn’t consider welfare as part of this Ames Pledge.  If I missed that, I certainly apologize.  I saw this Ames Pledge as, really, vilifying, or just saying “No” to tolerance.  I saw it as a very intolerant document.  And I am a firm believer that we need to reform welfare in this country, and at the base of reforming welfare is “If you can work, you should work.”

It’s an interesting and broad-based conversation overall, but I think the problem with Gary’s approach is that a lot of the base he’s catering to – the small-government crowd – also cares about social issues.

Johnson makes the mistake of assuming that social conservatives are monolithic in their support of government-centered approaches to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the general decline of society. As I noted in my original post on the Family Leader Pledge (refer to original pledge here,) I didn’t find a lot objectionable except for the call for a Constitutional amendment on marriage between one man and one woman. It’s not that I have an issue with protecting marriage, but it’s properly a state issue.

Ironically, Johnson is in agreement with me on that, but still chose to call me and others who care about these issues ‘intolerant’ because I don’t fall completely into line with his libertarian views on the subject. Perhaps he hasn’t a problem with certain portions of the Family Leader Pledge (particularly its call for a more limited government) but he chose not to sign it and that should have been enough. Many of the other contestants for the Presidential brass ring have forgone the opportunity as well but they haven’t besmirched the competition who did – even Mitt Romney withheld personal condemnation in refusing to sign.

Certainly I would like to pick and choose aspects of government to strengthen (yes, there are a few) and which ones should release their stranglehold on the American people. There are a few otherwise seldom-discussed planks in Johnson’s platform with which I agree and think should be brought out into the national conversation – chief among them the folly of the War on Drugs.

He certainly would like to limit government. Consider this passage from the call:

I just think that we’ve gone way overboard when it comes to this notion of need and entitlement, if you will.  So I am promising to submit a balanced budget for the year 2013, which would cut 43% of government expenditures at existing levels.  That means Medicaid, that means Medicare, that means military spending, for starters.  So, in that context, 43% reduction with regard to everything it is that government does, I think that is a weeding out process that gets us closer to the notion of helping those that are truly in need as opposed to this notion of entitlement and really this give away that has us in the fiscal predicament that we are in.  Really, we’re broke, and we’re on the verge of a monetary collapse because we print money to cover these obligations.

Good luck getting that through Congress. although it’s only cutting the budget back to 2002 levels. It also brings up a point that across-the-board cuts aren’t necessarily the correct solution – for example I think the budget of the Department of Education should be cut 100 percent, with the savings from the extra share used to maintain a strong national defense.

Yet the point is a good one. We haven’t prioritized spending in decades because the government gave itself a blank check with deficit spending, knowing they have the power to tax (also known as the power to destroy.) It’s time for some fiscal discipline, and I think TEA Party members understand this point. The question which Skip Murphy presented so well is whether we can have it all – advances in both social and fiscal conservatism – and I think the answer is yes, they are nowhere near mutually exclusive.

I would like to thank Gary Johnson’s staff for forwarding me the transcript. He’s been one of the best in working with bloggers, and that’s appreciated whether I agree with him or not.

Ramping up

Over the last several years, I have done the monoblogue Accountability Project. It’s an effort to identify how all 188 state legislators fared on a series of key floor (and, beginning in 2010, committee) votes based on a conservative point of view.

Generally the hardest step in the process, which takes many hours of research, is to determine just which bills are the most important ones to log. I’m going to return to that point later, but I wanted to go through some of the other parameters I’m going to include beginning this year for the second cycle of the mAP:

  1. I’m going to limit the number of votes to 25 each in the House and Senate. It’s not an arbitrary limit, though: since I base my point system on factors besides voting such as absences, skipping votes, or House members changing votes (all these factors can incrementally step down a score) I wanted a number I could easily divide into fourths yet remain a whole number, making the score easier to understand. So 100/25=4 points for each vote.
  2. Ideally, I’d like an even number of committee votes and that will be the hardest part since some committees vote on more important bills than others. I may consider committee votes as bonus points if I can’t rustle up enough votes out of certain committees and use 25 floor votes. I’d like to use between three and five committee votes as part of my 25, with the most likely result being three.
  3. There will definitely be a format change. Instead of grouping by district (1 through 47) I plan on doing the 2011 mAP by county – obviously MoCo will be a huge page while Somerset County would have just two legislators to deal with. But I think this is better for the end user who may not know just what number his or her district is.
  4. I also have to consider the Special Session this fall to deal with redistricting and any votes which come from that before dealing out legislative honors.

This is where you come in. I would love to have your assistance in identifying bills which are near and dear to your heart AND deal with statewide issues (so, for example, I wouldn’t work with our school board election bill since it only affects our county.) All I need is the bill number and I’ll take it from there.

Obviously I already know some of the biggies like the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, the gay marriage bill, raising the sales tax on alcohol, and the three budget bills (budget, BRFA, and bond bill.) But there are other key bills and amendments I’d like to be able to consider – the hardest part is pruning to 25 votes!

So here is your chance for input on the monoblogue Accountability Project – popular demand will help me prioritize.  Simply leave a comment below or e-mail me – ttownjotes (at) yahoo.com. My goal as always is to have this finished by July 4th.

A victory, if only for awhile

Marriage solely between a man and woman is safe in Maryland, at least for now.

If you believe House Speaker Michael Busch (and the Washington Post), the measure is dead for this term as supporters couldn’t convince 71 Delegates (a majority in the 141-seat body) to say yes to SB116. Two amendments were voted down today before Del. Joseph Vallario, Jr. asked the bill be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee. With all the angst in getting the bill to the point where it was, including sharply divided Senate and House committee votes, spending more time on what would likely be a losing cause apparently seemed pointless to Busch. Vallario likely didn’t want to go through another divisive committee vote, either.

The Baltimore Sun has additional commentary, with impassioned reaction from both sides of their readership – predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth from gay rights advocates and relieved but wary platitudes from those who feel marriage should remain as is.

It’s a tough day for our local leftists today – losing their blog and their cherished gay marriage bill in the span of 24 hours.

But now the General Assembly can get down to a key issue on its plate: fixing the state’s budget.

McDermott: gay marriage update

A number of amendments have been voted on and killed by the House of Delegates. District 38B Delegate Mike McDermott explains:

On Wednesday morning, the House began the debate on Senate Bill 116 which seeks to legalize gay marriage. This was the Second Reading of this bill and this is the time when the House offers and debates amendments to a bill. Several amendments were offered by both sides of the aisle. They addressed the following areas of concern:

  • Amendment 1 (543121/1) would address certain religious exemptions for adoption services and social service programs. It was simple and would have recognized the need for these objections for deeply held convictions. It was defeated on a vote of 58/79;
  • Amendment 2 (483026/1) would have provided for exemptions for religious held convictions as pertaining to training by teachers and participation by students in K-12 public school programs. This would address homosexual sex education and make provision for teachers, parents, and students not to participate in this type of training. It was voted down 54/86;
  • Amendment 3 (873228/1) would simply change the title of the bill to the “Same Sex Marriage Act” as opposed to its present title (Civil Marriage Protection Act). It was argued that the name was very deceiving and would continue to misdirect people when the bill goes to referendum. This amendment was defeated 52/85; and
  • Amendment 4 (223923/1) was offered by a democrat member and would require a statewide referendum be conducted prior to the law taking effect. This reasonable attempt was also shot down on a tight vote with a couple of democrats speaking out on the floor. The vote was 63/72.

With these amendment defeats, the bill remains intact and will next appear for Third Reader and a final vote.

I must say I was very disappointed, particularly with the failure of amendments 3 and 4. The House is clearly divided and I have never seen good legislation pass under these circumstances. Clearly the ruling party’s leadership had been whipping their caucus and twisting arms to secure these votes. On the amendment votes, many of the delegates chose not to even vote! That was more shocking that all the rest. What a colossal failure of courage and conviction. This same legislative body debated slots and agreed to let the people decide “this monumental issue”, and then fails to think the people of Maryland should weigh in on the definition of “marriage”? What an outrage!

The final outcome remains unknown and both sides are working hard. As a result, I strongly encourage citizens to participate in the process with a focus on the House Democrats. You can hear the debate in full here.

One thing McDermott didn’t mention – but is quite important – is that these amendments are likely failing because, if the House and Senate do not pass identical bills SB116 would have to go to a conference committee where passage is doubtful. Simply put, with a backlog of other work developing the gay marriage bill may not be reconsidered before sine die on April 13.

The final vote is likely to occur tomorrow, although supporters concede they may be a few votes short of the 71 required to pass a full House delegation. Look for a bid by supporters to convince those opposed not to vote, lessening the number needed for passage. They could even resort to trickery like a late-night vote if necessary.

A time to protest

In this civil (or perhaps uncivil, for as Axl Rose says, “What’s so civil ’bout war anyway?”) war around our land, the one which has progressed beyond ballots but thankfully not yet to bullets, it seems we’re as divided as we have been in any recent time. Even in Maryland, which is written off as a hopelessly single-party state, there’s a rear-guard action which requires the attention of the status quo in power.

For example, even though the same-sex marriage bill passed a key hurdle in the House of Delegates by narrowly passing the House Judiciary Committee on a 12-10 vote, there’s still hope that the correct course of action will be taken and the House at-large will defeat the bill, since the pro-gay forces have no guarantee they’ll get to the magic number of 71 Delegates needed to pass the bill. To that end, Robert Broadus of Protect Marriage Maryland is seeking a daily protest this week in Annapolis:

We are arranging a PROTEST in front of the Maryland State Capitol Every Day Next Week!! If unions (and) teachers can protest in Wisconsin over union benefits, we can certainly protest in Maryland over marriage!! I am asking ALL of you to please come WHEN you can.

We must now redouble our efforts. Are there enough people who care about this issue in MD to sustain a week long PROTEST here in Annapolis?

Maybe, maybe not. But this fight will drag on for at least the next few months as opponents have vowed to place the bill to referendum. In a Presidential election year, a referendum vote may hinge on black turnout as that community tends to oppose gay marriage and President Obama will presumably be on the ballot for re-election.

And then we have the mother of all protests next Monday, the 14th. Dubbed the “Rally to Keep the Promise” by its organizers, the Maryland State Education Association, it’s certain the usual big-government apologists will be there. And there’s nothing like a little class envy to fire up the troops:

We’re rallying to ask the General Assembly to prevent devastating cuts to public education and the retirement security of educators, police, health care workers, librarians, and many more hard-working Marylanders.

These cuts will threaten the quality of our public school system and the quality of the public services that we depend on everyday.

As Maryland recovers from the recession brought on by the excesses of Wall Street, we urge legislators to keep their promises to Main Street and provide great public schools, great public services, and a great future for Maryland. 

What about their fiduciary promises to taxpayers and the solvency of the state? There is a point where taxation works to negative results like job losses and capital flight. And – how does revamping teacher retirement affect the classroom in the here and now? Their job should be to teach children, not worry about contributing a few more dollars toward their retirement. In that respect, welcome to the world most of the rest of us share.

The principle of bargaining between those who receive taxpayer funds to run operations and who receive taxpayer funds to perform a service leaves one side always a loser – the taxpayer. It’s why those of us who are Taxed Enough Already (a.k.a. the TEA Party) are calling for a stop to the madness. We’ll be represented in Annapolis, too, and although our numbers may be smaller we’re not going to be quiet and allow our representative to be bullied. Governor Walker is on the right track, and although it’s going to be a long 3 1/2 years until we can rectify the problem here we’re setting out to do just that.

Step one is cutting the piggishness of Big Labor down to size.

In Maryland, fourteen becomes two

And everyone thought the Maryland Senate would be the tougher hurdle for gay marriage.

But yesterday, a Maryland House of Delegates committee vote on the matter was stymied by the absence of two Delegates who had originally expressed their support but now had second thoughts; this according to a story by Julie Bykowicz in the Baltimore Sun. Delegate Jill Carter of Baltimore City was holding out for the restoration of $15 million in school funding cuts to Baltimore City schools and a vote on a pet bill of hers presuming joint custody of children for divorcing couples; meanwhile, Delegate Tiffany Alston wanted time to pray over her vote.

Their absences were key because the 22-person committee appears to be split 12-10 in favor of the bill and losing the two ‘yes’ votes would kill the bill on a 10-10 tie. Instead of holding the vote as promised, Judiciary Committee Chair Joseph Vallario, Jr. opted not to send the gay marriage bill on to defeat, choosing to postpone the vote until all 22 members (or at least 11 supporters) were present.

Obviously Delegate Alston could become key – while Carter will likely be mollified by a promise to look at a funding solution more suitable to her needs, Alston may be having second thoughts based on the perception of her Prince George’s County district toward gay marriage. (As an example of this, it was minority votes that doomed California’s gay marriage bill to failure in 2008 via the Proposition 8 ballot issue.) Opponents of same-sex marriage are already plotting to gather signatures to put the bill to referendum next year should it pass the General Assembly, but that won’t be necessary if Alston or another House Judiciary Committee supporter switches sides, leaving 11 for and 11 against.

Yet, while this is a case where the outcome would benefit the conservative side, there should still be some criticism shown to Delegates Alston and Carter for ducking this vote. If they are having second thoughts about the measure, they should just show up and say no. Believe it or not, gay marriage is NOT the most important issue facing Maryland – even Delegate Carter noted, “there’s no need to act quickly on gay marriage because the 90-day session is only about half over and lawmakers are in their first year of a four-year term.” So what is the rush to pass a bill this year? Don’t they have a budget deficit to address?

It is sort of a bitter irony – and a sad commentary on our society today – that social conservatives and pro-life advocates can’t even get the time of day in the General Assembly, but if a small minority in the population wants to be able to call themselves “married” our representatives in Annapolis are supposed to drop everything and hurry to pass what they desire, especially when civil unions achieve many of the same goals.

In the end, though, I think the two Delegates will fold. Carter will be promised what she wants and Alston, who is a freshman legislator, will find out that what the Democratic Party wants in Annapolis, the Democratic Party gets – principles otherwise be damned.

But I’m hoping Alston proves me wrong and changes her mind in order to thwart the militant gay lobby. It may not be the most logical thinking I exhibit because I can’t cite a foolproof explanation for it other than tradition, but I believe marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman. Maryland doesn’t need to be yet another laboratory for social experimentation, and the law should stay as is on the subject regardless of what Doug Gansler chooses to think.

Kittleman leaves state leadership post

For those critics who believe there is a schism in Maryland between social conservatives and the Maryland GOP; well, this news may prove that the two are joined at the hip.

Earlier this week State Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman of Howard County announced he was stepping aside, effective tomorrow. His reason? According to a story by Sarah Breitenbach in the Gazette, Kittleman is leaving his leadership post because:

I could just sense that the majority would feel more comfortable having someone who is more socially conservative, and that’s just not who I am.

This stems from a bill Kittleman plans to introduce in the General Assembly which would legalize civil unions for same-sex couples in Maryland. It’s a position which puts him at odds with many Republicans outside the Log Cabin segment.

State GOP Chair Alex Mooney, a former colleague of Kittleman’s, also weighed in on the situation and prodded Allan to reconsider:

Senator Kittleman is an excellent Senate minority leader and I encourage him to reconsider his decision to step aside this Friday.  In the past election Senator Kittleman was the only Republican Senator to give away most of his campaign funds to help elect other candidates.  Senator Kittleman also traveled the state of Maryland tirelessly to offer grassroots campaign support to candidates without requiring any litmus test on issues.

While Republicans in elected office and Republican voters at the grassroots level will not agree on every issue, Senator Kittleman’s strong record on issues such as the right to keep and bear arms, tax relief, parental rights in education and less government spending fit well within the values of the Republican Party

In addition, Senator Kittleman is a man of the utmost ethical and moral character.  He is a strong family man from a distinguished family of loyal Republicans.  I urge my former Republican colleagues in the state Senate and Republicans at the grassroots level to publicly show their support for Senator Kittleman to continue as minority leader.  I have already called Senator Kittleman today and asked him to reconsider.

I think the die has already been cast, and it will be interesting to see who emerges as the new Senate GOP leader.

To me, this is a no-win situation for the GOP. If the measure has enough votes to pass they would surely come from the strong Democratic majority, who would likely squeeze Kittleman out of any credit for introducing the bill. (Don’t put it past Democrats to write nearly identical legislation under their auspices and pass it, either.) If it doesn’t pass, of course Republicans will be blamed for hanging their leader out to dry over the issue.

There are some who argue that marriage shouldn’t be a government issue at all; that it’s an issue between the couple and their church or deity. Some states still allow common-law marriages, for example (but Maryland is not one of them.) However, the state does recognize common-law marriages originating in jurisdictions where they are allowed – for the most part they would come out of the District of Columbia.

In the Republican Party though there is considerably more sentiment for the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman than for muddying up the waters with civil unions or gay “marriage.” Perhaps that’s because the tried and true method for maintaining society depended on men marrying women, and children brought up under such arrangements tended to succeed on a more regular basis. Exceptions to the rule cut both ways, but I happen to think the inclusion of same-sex couples in this institution for the sake of “tolerance” is the wrong move.

I also believe that this hill is far from the best one for Allan Kittleman to die on. As Mooney points out, Kittleman isn’t too unconventional of a Republican in most other ways. Then again, if leadership is using the power of conviction to bring others to your cause Allan isn’t being much of a leader in this regard. Instead, he’s a follower who seems to believe that being politically correct will pay off in the end – it rarely does for conservatives.

In a time when Republicans need to do whatever they can to stop the unceasing march of Maryland toward becoming a statist’s paradise, we need strength at the top. Perhaps it is time for new blood in Senate leadership.

Update: Richard Cross wonders if this is a harbinger of a possible Kittleman run for state office.

The Maryland marriage controversy

When Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler opined that Maryland should recognize the same-sex marriages of couples wed in the District of Columbia, he overturned precedent set in 2004 by former AG Joseph Curran and ignored a 1973 state law recognizing marriage solely between one man and one woman. Delegate Don Dwyer quickly denounced Gansler’s ruling and announced a bid to impeach the Attorney General.

While Dwyer is no stranger to impeachment proceedings over same-sex marriage, attempting to remove Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock for her ruling declaring the state law unconstitutional, he’s noncommittal thus far on whether he’ll include Governor O’Malley in his impeachment crusade as O’Malley publicly backed Gansler Wednesday.

(More on my Examiner.com page…)

An impeachable offense?

The argument over same-sex marriage continues, but has drawn a companion sidebar regarding Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler’s interpretation of his job vs. existing laws. Cue House of Delegates member and same-sex marriage foe Don Dwyer:

On March 31, I will be bringing Articles of Impeachment against Maryland’s Attorney General Doug Gansler at approximately 10am on the Floor of the House of Delegates. Please read further as to why I feel that I must take this action.

If you support me, please consider coming to Annapolis in a public show of support for upholding the Constitution.

(snip)

Maryland recently recognized same sex marriages for the purpose of marital benefits. The recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states was not enacted by the Maryland legislature nor was it mandated by Maryland courts; rather it was the independent decision of Maryland’s Attorney General Douglas Gansler, released on February 24, 2010.

Because this was a blatant attack on Maryland’s current law that states: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this state” and because this action is clearly a violation of the separation of powers related to the three branches of government, the Attorney General was put on public notice that impeachment charges were being drafted.

As if the Attorney General was not in enough hot water, on March 1, 2010 HE DECLARED HIMSELF UNIMPEACHABLE in an attempt to thwart any attempt by the legislature to hold him accountable for usurping their authority. Unbelievably, the Attorney General went to a subordinate member of his staff, Mr. Dan Friedman to write the letter addressed to Maryland’s Speaker of the House, stating that the Attorney General could not be removed by impeachment.

Mr. Gansler’s actions have put Maryland in a constitutional crisis. The highest law officer in the state who is an elected member of the executive branch of government has violated his Oath of Office and has revealed his incompetence, and his willful neglect of duty. As a constitutional officer, he must ensure that the provisions of the State and U.S. Constitutions are upheld in all cases, including a constitutional charge against him.

Attorney General Gansler testified in his official capacity two years ago in support of a gay marriage bill. He said that iit (sic) would be hard to not try to correct an injustice in the law. His testimony publicly revealed his partial and prejudiced position on the subject of same sex marriage. Mr. Gansler violated his oath of office in which he swore to perform his duties in an impartial and unprejudiced manner.

After revealing his bias on the issue, he was asked by a member of the Senate to advise on the legality of Maryland recognizing same sex marriage contracted in other states. Despite the fact that the Office of the Attorney General addressed that very same question in 2004, and despite the fact that no court ruling, or legislation has overturned that 2004 opinion, Mr. Gansler released a “new” opinion in which he “interprets” the law as supporting the legality of recognizing out of state same sex marriages.

In short, the Attorney General decided that a standing Maryland law is an “injustice” and subsequently misused the authority of his office to effectively change the law without having gone through the legislative process defined in the Maryland constitution.

If this goes unchallenged, the next Attorney General is likely to follow this precedent and usurp the authority of the legislature based on his personal bias. As result, citizens will no longer have the representation that is provided them under the Constitution.

The stage is now set in Maryland for a Constitutional show down. On March 31st a charge of impeachment will be brought before the Maryland House of Delegates at roughly 10:05 am. The House Speaker has publicly stated that he will rule the charge out of order citing the opinion that the Attorney General cannot be impeached as the authority for the out of order ruling.

Regardless of your personal view on same sex marriage, the recent activities of the Maryland Attorney General should give us reason to pause. Again, the Maryland Attorney General has taken for himself; the powers vested in the legislature and declared himself unimpeachable and unaccountable to the citizens of Maryland?

In case you’re wondering, I am pondering making this into an Examiner story closer to time but want to do a little bit of research and ask questions first. But in the meantime, I believe Dwyer has a case – at the current time Maryland law indeed states that marriage is between one man and one woman (and has said so since the early 1970’s.) If the General Assembly wants to have that fight, that’s one thing (and this may be considered after the safety of re-election next year) but for the moment that prospect is a no-go.

On the other hand, while Dwyer has a case, the actual prospects of getting Gansler out of office reside between slim and none, with slim having just vacated the premises. It would be a much better move to find a strong Republican candidate to oppose Gansler and perhaps make this election a referendum by proxy on the subject at hand. If Gansler isn’t Attorney General he’s free to make all the erroneous judgments of law he wishes, since it will no longer be as a representative of the state of Maryland.