It's OK for local governments to take positions on state legislation when it directly affects the business of government functioning in CP. However, it should not be about social issues that have nothing to do with that governance. Gay marriage "rights" is just too controversial and divisive for prudent action in these matters; as well as completely unnecessary.

The CP council has enough business in its narrow bounds of authority, to be worrying about gay marriage, especially when there are no hearings on the matter. Very disrespectful of people in CP who object to that idea as absurd and irrational.

The reason for prudence in governance is to avoid divisions and disorder and distraction away from the few important things that do need real attention. MY question is doesn't the CP council have enough to do here in this little town, without getting involved with such divisive social issues? What's next, that the CP council vote to make this town a "nuclear free zone" -- or declare the town a sanctuary city for illegal aliens or undocumented visitors from foreign planets?

This vote didn't make friends with those of us who think marriage is strictly between men and women. Makes us question the sanity and prudence of the council members - so maybe we need to question their ability to make wise decisions on less controversial issues that have some real relevance to their proper function as elected leaders.

@Lee Havis: Agree 100%.

CP council members, as elected officials, holds the trust of their constituents to deal with issues that affect all its citizens irrespective of their race, religion and sex.

For me to have to pay benefits and support some damn gay couple or marriage is stupid. This is what happens when "liberals" take over the USA. This country was not created nor supported that. It shows up for O'Malley and now the College Park council.
These are the same ones that want you to ride around in 4-twos, & some crap of electric car just to save the enviroment.
Its always the children the, poor, school education , and environment, that's all they
know how to preach about. and nothing happens but taxes go up. Thank you O'Malley & College park!

I applaud the council for agreeing that everyone in the state of Maryland should have equal rights. I also applaud councilman Wojahn for sharing his story. That took a lot of courage and it makes me respect him more.

People want to say that the council should not take positions on social issues. People also want to argue that you cannot take the University out of College Park. Well, with a University in your city you need to consider social issues. With the amount of suicides committed by homosexual teens last year alone (a lot caused by bullying) the issue of equality and acceptance has been brought to the forefront. I think we send a very important message to the University and the LGBT community by supporting equality and by showing the state that our city is an accepting one.

Let's hear it for the College Park City Council choosing EQUALITY. Congrats to them and Governor O'Malley. Keep the momentum going.

Cam and Pamela,
I don't get the "equality" argument at all. How does that apply to gay "marriage"? As the law stands now, any man, whether gay or straight, can marry any woman they choose the same as anyone else -- with the proviso of agree and mutual consent, of course. Likewise, if you are a lesbian woman, you have complete equality with straight women to accept a marriage proposal from any male who is willing. Sounds like equality to me. What am I missing?

What you call "equality" is really having government create a special "right" for some people who wish government to ordain their abnormal, deviated path of homosexuality. Straight males and females don't have that "right" -- but you want to force it on them anyway. That's a weird, insane logic I don't get. Maybe you can explain it to me.

There are a whole bunch of other "rights" that have been created by government for special interest groups and forced on everyone to support, whether they want it or not. This has got to change if we hope to return to a path of sane and civilized social order in Maryland. I can see we have a ways to go.

Lee - What right is it that this would give to homosexuals that it would not give to a straight person?

Pamela,
It's real good to be open-minded; now couple that with thinking for yourself, and that's a winning combination. learning is possible. I have worked with parents, teachers, and children for over 30 years, in many different cultures of the world, and based on that, I have always seen the gender roles determined by nature, either male or female. Deviations come from psychological choices determined by defective conditions in childhood. For example, a 12 year old girl who gets brutally raped, then discovers that she's a lesbian. It's a logical choice in that situation; unconscious, of course, repressed, but still a "choice" (Not blame, mind you; because there is a logical reason for the choice; remember Sophie's choice to sacrifice her girl child for her boy; in China, boys are preferred; and abortions abound to make that a meaningful choice by the parents... but I digress)

Also, look to the woman's movement and growing number of unwed mother heads of family who make being a "male" somehow irrelevant, weak, and inferior. I think that's part of the reason we are seeing such a surge in the homosexual behavior in recent times.

I do think for myself and therefore do not buy into your 'explanation' or blame on the women's movement. Yes some instances of homosexuality are bred out of abuse, but not every homosexual has been a victim or had a defective condition in childhood. The fact that you call homosexuality a 'behavior' is very troubling. Is heterosexuality also a 'behavior'? But as I said, we will just agree to disagree as you have your opinions and I have mine.

Mr. Havis,
Do you have a "PHD" in human behavior? Because I'm hear to tell you a few things,
1. I had a great childhood, with 2 loving parents!
2. As far as I can remember I always liked looking at guys, even as a kid!
Both of my parents were civil, moderately conservative republicans as am I! There was not one thing in my childhood that would have made me to "CHOOSE" to be gay! In fact I remember being called "FAGGOT & QUEER" and just like any good old country boy would do is fight. Why would I fight, simple, they had no reason to even think I was gay. That's just how they would start out to get you to fight.
So until you walk in my shoes or anyone else that is "DIFFERENT" you may want to make sure your reality check won't bounce.

Lee - I haven't chimed in on this conversation yet, but having gotten an excellent education at public schools from grades K-Undergrad, I have to speak out for public education. True, I grew up in Green Bay, not here. And yes, I've spoken about the difficult time I had being gay. But it is simply not true that private schools are better in that regard. In fact, a recent study by the Josephson Institute Center for Youth Ethics involving over 43,000 students, boys and girls, at public and private schools, found that the both boys and girls at private non-religious schools were the most likely to use racial epithets or admit to having bullied someone in the past year. See http://nyti.ms/yNsr0R. The raw data is here: http://bit.ly/y1fUx9.

Regarding the issue at hand - so you're telling me I have equality, because I can marry a woman? I'm allowed to get married, as long as I marry who you want me to? Funny thing is, that's exactly what the proponents of anti-miscegenation laws (which banned interracial marriage) argued before the Supreme Court. They argued it wasn't discrimination because both white people and black people could marry someone of the same race.

Also - like Tim, I had two loving parents. Like Tim, my parents are both moderate conservatives (but unlike Tim, I am not). Like Tim, I remember being attracted to guys at a very early age. I never made a choice to be gay, I just was, and am. There's nothing "abnormal or deviated" about it.

Patrick,
I'm not here to do a critique of "educational research" on the subject of bullying - except to say that any study of human behavior is very subjective, and easily twisted to fit the prejudices of those conducting the study.

Racial mixing marriage is based on the idea that black people are genetically inferior -- sort of like the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. In the US, there were probably studies to prove blacks inferior to whites. But we know that this is not biological fact - it's social engineering, largely the product of slavery based on race. In any case, I'm sure the PhD's in the third reich had all the studies in line to prove that Jews were sub-human, right along with the blacks as well.

Marriage is logically based on biology, and common sense backs up the man/woman relationship. As said, I have lots of experience in education of young children, so I speak from that personal background experience. I've never seen an exception to that, and I've seen children in many cultures all over the world. Homosexuality is a socially acquired orientation.

No one remembers the very early years of life - what happened back there still forms our personality and style of life. Even Hitler wasn't born a "Jew hater." Who can say what happened at that time to influence your sexual preferences away from the facts of your biological reality.

Lee - I thought that when you made a broad statement about public vs. private schools, you might have some actual facts to back it up, or at least be interested in facts that exist to the contrary. If you review the research I linked to, it's apparent that they aren't biased in support of public schools - it's objective research with raw data.

Similarly, you don't cite any actual research to back up your argument that homosexuality is "socially acquired."

But regardless of how people become gay - whether it's socially acquired or genetic - it seems you would agree that it's not a choice. If someone is gay through circumstances of upbringing, that also means it's not a choice.

Marriage is not based on procreation, it's based on love. If you ask people why they get married, I bet they wouldn't say that it's so that they can have children. Many people get married without having children. Many people have children without getting married. But you'll rarely see people get married (at least not voluntarily) if they don't love each other, and most people who love each other and choose to spend the rest of their lives together do get married. So marriage is not based on biology, it's based on love.

And if marriage is based on love, why not allow two consenting adults who love each other to get married? Why restrict it because two people are of the same gender? It doesn't hurt the institution of marriage one bit to allow any two consenting adults who love each other to get married - in fact, it strengthens it, because it ties the institution of marriage to the idea of love, which, although it doesn't always last forever, is a strong and powerful force.

I should note, too, that more and more same-sex couples are having children - so even if marriage is for the purpose of raising children, this doesn't justify limiting it to straight couples either. I know many same-sex couples that are raising children and want to get married so that they can have a more stable household (with legal protections) to raise their children in.

This discussion has gone way off track. The debate should not be about a persons sexual preference, that is up to that individual. The debate should be about whether the council is in or out of line choosing to represent the residents of the city on a state issue. The council members were not elected to represent us on state matters. Our state representative were chosen for such. The council should stick with issues pertaining to the city and leave it up to the residents of the city to call their respective state representatives.

Kudos to the City Council for voting for equality! Discrimination (and harassment and persecution) on account of sexual orientation is evil, just as is discrimination (and harassment and persecution) on account of race, ethncity, gender, and religion. And kudos to Patrick Wojahn for speaking out on this issue.

Same-sex marriage doesn't undermine anyone's rights. No one is forced to marry someone of the same gender. And, under this legislation, no religion or religious institution would be forced to recognize same-sex marriage.

Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't undermine the freedom of heterosexual men and women to marry whom they choose. But prohibiting same-sex marriage does undermine the freedom of gay men and lesbian women to marry whom they choose.

Marriage is a partnership. In some cultures and eras, marriage has been viewed as a means for regulating procreation. But in the modern era, in many cultures, marriage is an economic relationship contracted for love.

It is not about procreation in the US. If it was, those unable to procreate would not be allowed to marry. But there is no state that requires prospective spouses to pass a fertility test! And many couples marry when they are long past child-bearing age! So those of you who are arguing that marriage must be between a man and a woman to ensure procreation, current law and practice reflect otherwise. And I wonder, would you assert that heterosexual marriages incapable of producing offspring should be banned?

Cam Pamela Danny Patrick Tim & Lourene-I could not agree more with you! This clearly homophobic teacher is completely misinformed & out of line/control. His arguments/theories are ignorant, close-minded, strerotypical and discriminatory. They are also solely based on his observations as a school teacher and have zippy merit or credibility. Past trauma/experiences do not determine one's sexuality; they may have an influence but there is no choice involved on how one grow's up or whom they choose to fancy! I am a licensed mental health therapist and am extremely glad that the DSM has long since removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, though not soon enough even. My positive feelings about the council voicing their support about this matter and my complete/utter disagreement of Lee's opinions are based upon my professional, academic and personal knowledge and experiences in this area; & are ultimately supported by fact & research, not based upon bigotted feelings and classroom observations. You sir, Lee, should not have the right to teach any children, your teaching license should be revoked immediately & you should be ashamed of yourself. I would be glad to have a chat with you & provide some proper education and professional insight into this matter to you, Mr. Teach. Being a school teacher does not provide you with any expertise/knowledge on this matter-I'm sorry & I hope you do not violate ethics & convey your misguided opinions to your students, for their sake!

Although I agree 100% with gay marriage I do not think it is the business of the city council to do anything about it. This is nothing more then a PR, get your name out there incident. The "higher ups" will do whatever they want without regard to a thumbs up or down from 8 people who live in college park.

If we had this discussion in the playground I'd call all of you gay, cause thats what this is.

The City Council has many times in the past weighed in on matters before the County Council and the State Assembly that are not limited in scope to the City of College Park. And because gays and lesbians -- and people committed to equality of all kinds -- live in the City of College Park, this matter does directly affect the residents of the City of College Park. So I don't consider the vote inappropriate. You may be right that the "higher ups" will disregard the City Council's vote, but that is not a reason for not voting on the issue.

I don't understand your last comment. Are you saying that your response to reasoned arguments is to call people names, just as children do on playgrounds? Or are you saying that non-gay/lesbian people have no interest in equal treatment for gays and lesbians? I know the latter is untrue. I can say nothing of the former.

I think or hope that Barry's comment was a bit of humor and pointing out that this discussion has become long winded (35 comments and counting could be a Patch record). And debating the morality of homosexuality should be held in another forum. The original comments here as well as the little poll at the end of the article and Mr. Kabir's negative vote indicate that there is concern about the council's mission. Also, in my little side debate, Mr. Wojahn says, "we do it all the time" yet in the following response he says, "The Council generally does not take positions on issues that don't impact the governance of the City." Which is it?

If we are to vote on all things that effect some or all of the residents of the city, how about we discuss medical marijuana, assisted suicide, or even Afghanistan? There must have been some CP residents that went to fight there. Lets also vote and send a message about raising taxes on the very rich. These are just a handful of issues that at least some CP resident are passionate about.

As for the how people feel about gay marriage. How about the Patch do a poll on that. It would reflect this debate more accurately since it has diverted from it's original point.

Listen, folks, there's no use arguing with people like Lee. His ears and mind are closed and he doesn't WANT to learn or change. You know, the biggest homophobes are the ones that hate that aspect within themselves. You see it time and time again with Republicans getting caught soliciting sex in bathrooms or from male prostitutes. Lee, I feel pity for you. Being gay is not a choice you feel able to make, when so many others HAVE chosen to follow their hearts. Must be a lonely, sad life.

For the people saying that the council should not take stands on State or County issues, do you feel the same way about the council sending letters in support of the bag tax and in support of Senator Raskin's letter asking for a constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United? (By the by, councilmember Kabir supported both of these letters).

Richard - I thought I was clear, but let me spell it out better. The City takes positions on state and County issues all the time. It's rare, though, that we take a position on "social" issues, or issues that do not directly impact the usual sphere of the City government. As I said, we did so because we felt that this would send a powerful message regarding the nature of our city and because of the importance of this matter as a civil rights issue. Also, incidentally, the article is as much about the City taking a stance on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples as it was about the issue of whether the City should take on stance on state bills in general, so I don't understand why you're trying to prevent that discussion from taking place here. If you think there are too many comments, then you don't need to read them.

Lee - there's a lot more I could say in response to your arguments, but it's clear that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. I just hope that, as a teacher, if a young gay or lesbian kid were to come to you for counseling or guidance, that you wouldn't tell that kid that his or her feelings were "deviate" or abnormal, as you put it. You might be putting that poor kid's life at risk. I would hope you would put your personal feelings aside in the interest of providing appropriate counseling to a kid.

Patrick,
I probably have a different view of teaching and counselling than you. I don't push ideas on children under the guise of "teaching" I believe that all people, despite their behavioral or psychological quirks (we all have them) have a source of truth within themselves. So, when children come with profound troubles and questions, the best response is reflective language and questioning. For example, "what do you think?' Answering a child's questions directly, in almost any area, is an imposition and betrayal of the truth. It's better to help people figure things out by consulting that "teacher within."

I would offer the same advice to anyone who doesn't happen to agree with my statements, which is here a debate among adults. We all know what the truth is if we look for it within ourselves.

I also agree with that - we should encourage children to look inside themselves to find the truth. After struggling to come to my sexual orientation for years and having many people tell me something was wrong with being gay, that's exactly what I did! And I discovered the truth for myself, which is that being gay is perfectly natural and normal. Thanks for making that point, Lee! Have a good day.

Chaz Bono for Mayor. And Jerry Sandusky of City Manager. "Free to be yourself " can be on the City's welcome signs. Now that would be a dream come true for progressive Dems.

I see we have several Obama bots here. Sandusky is two in one. That should make you feel just great. You must be proud to support Warren Jeffs as well. He was just showing his love for women of all ages --- the more the better. Why limit him to just one wife? He has equal rights too. Good luck on your race to the bottom --- sounds like you want to return to a uncivilized society.

The hateful comments on this article are the very reason I believe its important to take a stance on issues like this and why I was proud to vote for this letter in support of marriage equality.

The reason the City Council should weigh in on certain matters that don't relate to the city's direct governance is because they are matters with profound effect upon society and when several or many different local governments advocate for the same or similar positions, that can help move those positions on the larger stage. In the case of same-sex marriage, this is a fundamental civil rights issue. In the long run, history will judge this the same as racial discrimination issues. It took this country a long time to get beyond official, legalized "separate but equal" racial discrimination, and interracial marriages still bring up hostilities in some places, as experienced by interracial couples simply living their daily lives. It is crucial to the functioning of civil society in our community for our community to take a stand to protect the civil rights of all its members. To fail to do so is an abrogation of the community's responsibility. I am proud to live in a community that considers this important and follows through!

Pam, Patrick: I think we are going around in circles here. We both seem to agree that the city should go to the county or state when the issue effects the Corporation of College Park, it operations and governance. The Citizens United issue as you pointed out can have an undesirable impact on local elections. As for a bag tax, maybe that would reduce the city's litter. In both of these issues you are representing the city not it citizens. As for marriage law, I do not see how the city itself is affected, therefor you have chosen to speak for the residents of the city in which there are already state representatives for that.

I am not trying to prevent discussion here. The original discussion is what I have pointed out. It has now become a futile discussion on the morality of homosexuality and just like other endless social issues (gun control, abortion, school prayer, etc.) no minds have changed, the discussion has only become ugly and I do not want to be a part of this.

Enjoy yourselves.

Pam raised a very good question on how the bill is different from other County and State bills that our city council sometime takes and votes on.

First, unlike other State / County issues that the council decides on, this one is a social one. As my colleague Mr. Wojahn has correctly pointed out, our City typically doesn't take a bill that is social in nature. In fact in entire City’s history, this is probably the first kind of bill that the council has been passing for the past several years.

But more importantly, the issue is extremely controversial too. If anyone has any doubt about this, just check the number of comments readers have in this post and the kind of passion they have in expressing those opinions. Now compare these numbers against those on the article about County’s bag fee bill.

I’ve seen emails from residents saying that this is an issue of equality and fairness, and I do have deep respect for those opinions. On the other hand, I’ve emails from residents saying that they do not want to see the traditional / official definition of marriage in the State (Article 2-201) be changed. Many others relate the issue with their faith / belief / religion, which makes the issue even more complex and sensitive. As an elected representative,

I felt that it’s important to respect each one of these views, no matter how different they are from each other. (contd.)

(contd.) If the issues in this bill were not this sensitive, complex and controversial, it would have been a lot easier for me to vote on this matter. But because it’s, I didn’t think that only eight residents on the council should be imposing their views on 30,000 City residents,

In fact there has been at least one incident in our Council’s history when the Council members didn’t want to take a position on highly controversial issue. This happened in 2007, when the controversial issue of City’s proposed police force came for discussion and the Council decided to put this to a referendum.

One can make even a stronger argument in this marriage bill case, because the State is not asking us to take a position on this and there are other very easy ways residents can share their views with our State Senator and Delegates. A number of these State representatives live in College Park and these are the people who will actually be voting on this bill at the end.

Thanks Councilman for your stand. It all makes sense. First of all, it was obviously an unnecessary vote for CP Council to spend time on and create undue rancor among the citizens. But in this age of political correctness and political pandering, politicians have their way and that’s at least understandable.
But I am amused by the claim of the same-gender marriage proponents that it’s a matter of ‘equality’. Marriage equality to include same-sex marriage is an oxymoron at its best. What kind of equality we are talking about? On the contrary, it actually leads to inequality. With all due respect, here are some reasons
1. Same-sex marriage is certainly an onslaught on the believers of the world who believe in the natural order of marriage between a man and a woman. Disrespecting and intruding that freedom of belief is an act of inequality and injustice by definition.
2. It doesn’t square off with the same-sex philosophy at all, my dear same-sex brethren. It allows undue preference to a particular group, in this case the same-sex practitioners, against their own choice-and-inclination. They would oppose the prerequisite of marriage and the long-held sanctity of marriage by their lifestyle choice-and-inclination, but at the same time, they would reap the benefit of marriage. What a hypocrisy, greed, and inequality politicians try to impose on the society?

(..Contd...)

(..contd..)
3. The civil society has acknowledged the social rights of man loving man and woman loving woman by coining the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’. Now if gay and lesbian people want long-term commitment, why don’t the we coin another term for that? Marriage is not the right phrase here, which can be taken so lightly for a long term commitment between same-gender couple; it is much more than that, it’s an institution having so many faculties, not all of them would be even applicable to same-gender couples. So, why is this injustice and inequality?

Thanks Pamela. That's an interesting point. But can you tell me where does this 'Change [we can believe in:)]' end?

what is next? Mr O'Mally wants to change the definition of marriage to’ include all loving, adult couples, regardless of gender.’ Question is -- Where does this ‘definition change’ end? Who defines ‘adult’ for just one example? Let’s suppose a group of 12-year kids start a movement called ‘We-Demand-adult-right’. And their logic is – ‘state or religion doesn’t have any right to define whether we are adult or not. We know we can do ‘adultery’, so we are adult; so let’s enjoy all the privileges of adults including drug, tobacco, voting…., ……..’ Wouldn’t that lead to more inequality? More insanity More lawlessness? More havoc to the society? What are we getting out of that 'change'?

I've been watching all of the comments either for or against the vote. And I'm not sure why the city council even brought this to a vote? It's not a city issue. I don't mean it's not important to individuals within the city, but it makes no difference how they vote because this is a state
and federal issue. But if they are going to bring up issues such as this to vote on, then I went to know their stance on all things, i.e. are they pro or anti abortion, pro or anti gun control. My point is they did not run on these isusues because they are state and federal issues. They ran on issues that they have a control over, so let's keep it that way! Other wise I want to know where they stand on these issues for the next election.

Well, we can have all bagful of arguments we want but end of the day it’s the same old: to be or not to be that is the question! Let’s take a break, think out-of –the box, and zoom out a lil’ bit to see the big picture. Maybe we can try some Q & A – (that’s right, no arguments just a candid discussion between you and your conscience).

Let’s start with some factual analysis and see where we stand on that – ideally, what makes us different as a human in the biological hierarchy of species is the ability to use our rational faculty– the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman is what justifies such human ability and clearly distinguishes us from the other species who does not have such discernment. As such, marriage is what made us who we are today and the basis of human foundation and history. (..contd..)

Ideally, the reason why you and I are here today and belong to this very existing human society is because of an orderly marriage that took place between a man and a woman. That being said, approving a marriage otherwise would be a straight denial to the truth, who we are, our existence, and the sanctity of the marriage that our loving parents believed in. So what's really at stake? You can only hope that with similar rationale and arguments one day a generation will not come who will start re-defining even your version of choice-and-inclination which can go beyond and cross the boundary of human. Do you see how one wrong choice can open the door for another and invite a chaotic world as a fruit of the seed that we sow today where everyone and every group will demand their “equality”, “fairness”, and “love” to be respected? (..contd..)

Let’s move on…of the attributes of marriage is the union of two individuals of opposite genders and the procreative capacity. Also, as is clearly evident, the meaning of marriage is self-defined and does not need to be supported by “equality” or any other attributes that same-sex unions need to make its case as a marriage. When same-sex union does not qualify to have any of the attributes of a regular marriage why then it should be equated with the very existing definition of marriage? Until and unless one can bring a logical/factual basis that same-sex union/inclination has the same core values and attributes like a regular marriage then justifying same-sex unions as a marriage is baseless and wrong unless you deny the truth and/or the facts. You give it a different name or define it in any way you want to but keep the sanctity of marriage separate since same-sex unions simply does not fit into the realm of regular marriage definition.