ANNAPOLIS - The full House of Delegates is expected to consider a flurry of amendments Friday when it takes up final debate on a contentious bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
It's unclear how many amendments will be debated, but one proposed by Delegate John Olszewski, Jr., D-Baltimore County, seeks to broaden exemptions for religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriages.
Delegate Kathleen Dumais, a Montgomery Democrat and the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, presented the amendment to committee members Thursday evening. She characterized it as a friendly amendment.
Find out what's happening in Owings Mills-Reisterstownfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
"I'm OK with it," Dumais, a same-sex marriage supporter, told Capital News Service. "I think it is probably good for the bill."
The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on whether to support the amendment just minutes before the full House meets at 11 a.m.
Find out what's happening in Owings Mills-Reisterstownfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate two weeks ago by a vote of 25-21, but has faced a much bumpier ride since House members started debating the proposal.
By proposing the amendment late Thursday, Dumais drew ire from committee members angry about the way the Senate bill has moved through the House.
The situation highlights an internal struggle among delegates that played out in the House on Wednesday, when four amendments to the bill failed. Some delegates are frustrated with what they've described as a mandate from Senate leadership not to amend the bill.
Delegate Susan McComas, R-Harford, complained about the process Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee, saying "we were told there were going to be no amendments, that we were going on the Senate bill and what the Senate did, we had to do."
"Now it's all changing," McComas said. "You can't make these iron clad rules and then make an exception. It doesn't look good, it doesn't feel good. We all went into this knowing what the rules were, and now they've changed."
In an interview later, Dumais defended the Senate position of telling the House not to amend the bill.
"It is appropriate," she said. "The Senate said 'we're handling it early. We don't want to see it come back and can't guarantee that if you send it back to us that we're going to go through the process again.'"
Dumais said the Senate's so-called mandate is not unreasonable because both chambers are soon to be consumed with budget negotiations.
"This is real democracy in action despite the sense of some committee members and delegates that this is being railroaded through," Dumais said.
Dumais, however, acknowledged that any amendment the House passes could derail the bill because it would send it back to the Senate, where lawmakers would have to vote on the changes made in the House.
"It's really a question of can the Senate live with this, and if so, fine, we're done," Dumais said.
She added: "Really I don't think anybody knows the end of the story."
Whether the bill moves forward or dies on the floor could come down to a single vote. Neither opponents nor supporters have said if they have enough votes to pass the bill.
Delegate Michael Smigiel, R-Cecil, said Thursday during the committee hearing that Dumais bringing the amendment to the committee appears to be an attempt by supporters to trade an amendment for a vote.
