As Maryland lawmakers consider legislation expanding marriage equality to gays and lesbians this session, some on-the-fence Democrats will introduce language to exempt religious institutions from performing same-sex marriages and allow those organizations to deny services to same-sex couples:

One person in that category is Del. John Olszewski, a Baltimore County Democrat who expressed concerns about the legislation last session but has left the door open to voting yes. He said his main concern is how the law would impact churches, mosques and synagogues whose members abhor same-sex marriages. “We have to be crystal clear on the religious exemptions,” Olszewski said in a recent interview.

Olszewski is looking for protections beyond simply letting religious institutions bar the ceremonies. He said the law could, for instance, make clear that religious organizations would not have to rent a house to a same-sex couple. “If Maryland is going to move forward, it is very important that appropriate religious safeguards are included,” he said.

Recall that New York legislators secured similar protections before approving the state’s marriage equality measure in June. That law — which was widely praised as fair by the same-sex marriage coalition — states that religious entities “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” “Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate against such religious corporation, benevolent order, a not-for-profit explanation.”

Rick Santorum told conservative Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson today that he pities the man who covered him with glitter over the weekend. “Glitter bombs” have been used to protest anti-gay policies, but Santorum says he feels “sorry” that this person felt the need to respond and promised to pray that he works out his struggles:

SANTORUM: It’s one of those things where there are a lot of people out there who are hurting, who are struggling with a lot of different issues. My feeling is, that’s part when you open yourself up to the public, you’re going to get good things happen to you and not so nice things. What I’m taking the approach of is you move on. I feel sorry for that man that he felt like he was compelled he had to do that. Like I do, what I’m supposed to do, is you know, according to our faith, is to pray for them, and I hope people work that out.

Mickelson commiserated that Santorum has been the victim of “seething, satanic, wicked hatred” for the way his name has been smeared because of his anti-gay politics.

Here again is video of the Iowa man tossing glitter at Santorum:

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals has ruled that both women in a now-separated lesbian couple have parental rights to the child they raised together. This case challenges previous statutes defining a child’s “birth mother” only as the woman who gave birth, because one of the women donated her egg and the other carried it to term. In the decision, the judges overturned a lower court’s ruling and pointed out that it is in the child’s best interest not to lose either of her parents, juxtaposing the situation with the Biblical Judgment of Solomon:

Appellee suggests that because she and Appellant have separated, a choice must be made.  She posits that, as the birth mother, she should have exclusive parental rights to the child and that Appellant, as the biological mother, should have no rights at all.  If we were to accept Appellee’s argument that a  choice must be made between the two, perhaps a Solomonic approach to resolving this dispute would be preferable, but we are neither possessed of the wisdom of Solomon nor are we able to apply his particular methodology under the law as we know it today.

Parental rights, which include the love and affection an individual has for his or her child, transcend the relationship between two consenting adults, and we see nothing in this record that makes either Appellant or Appellee an exception that places those rights in one to the exclusion of the other… Their separation does not dissolve the parental rights of either woman to the child, nor does it dissolve the love and affection either has for the child.

In the Biblical story, King Solomon solved a quarrel between two women claiming to be a child’s mother by threatening to cut him in half. The true mother was revealed when she was willing to let the other woman keep the baby to save its life. Obviously, such a story does not accommodate the modern day reality that two women really can both be a child’s mothers. The Florida Court’s decision affirms that same-sex families are no different than any other family and the rights of children to know both their parents — whatever their sex — is paramount.

Sinking GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann tried to deflect a question about her past anti-gay comments during an interview on CNN this morning, refusing to explain her 2004 claim that the gay life is “part of Satan”:

SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: You have taken a lot of flak for some of your very strong social issues, where you stand on them, and I want to talk about some of them. Your stance on homosexuality — and want to read a little bit of what you said — You said, at the Educators Conference in 2004, ‘Gays live a very sad life,’ and that ‘it’s part of Satan’ And that’s quote. You’ve taken a lot of flak for that. Do you pull back on any of that?

BACHMANN: It’s a bizarre thing to bring up. Today is the election, what people recognize is that the most important issue that people will be looking at is, ‘Who is the best person to deal with the economy?’ [...]

O’BRIEN: What you’re telling me is that you don’t want to discuss social issues because you want to discuss the economy. I don’t think it’s a bizarre question. I think it’s a fair question if you’re running to be president.

BACHMANN: Well, it’s a gotcha question coming way out of the past. I stand very strong for marriage between one man and one woman.

Watch it:

Bachmann of course came to prominence for sponsoring a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota and has called same-sex marriage “probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, 30 years.” Here is the full context of her 2004 quote: “We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It’s not funny, it’s sad. [...] This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It’s anything but gay. [...] Because if you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. Personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that’s why this is so dangerous.” [HT: The Blaze]

Bob Vander Plaats tried to downplay his Dec. 20 endorsement of Rick Santorum, but with the former Pennsylvania senator now building momentum in Iowa, the FAMiLY Leader president is now predicting a Santorum surge in New Hampshire, where the candidate is still in single digits and has run what could best be described as a courtesy campaign.

During an appearance on Fox News this morning, Vander Plaats said he expected Santorum to win the caucuses and lashed out against Mitt Romney, who he claimed “has pretty much dissed our base.” Watch it:

The vehemently anti-gay Vander Plaats has sparked criticism in recent days for engaging in “pay for play” schemes and selling his coveted support among Evangelical Christian voters to the highest bidder. ABC News reported last week that Vander Plaats approached Romney in 2008 “seeking money for his backing if he supported the former Massachusetts governor.” “He wanted to be paid,” a former staffer said. “He was clearly looking for a paycheck. There was a conversation about him getting a title, but being a paid consultant was much more important.”

The GOP presidential race will shift to New Hampshire after today’s Iowa caucuses, where Republicans in the legislature and Catholic leaders have pledged to repeal the state’s 2009 marriage equality law — despite overwhelming public support for the measure. This morning, the state’s leading newspaper, the Concord Monitor, debunks the arguments against same-sex marriage and calls on lawmakers to “leave the law alone“:

• Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is more of a declaration than an actual argument. In fact, it’s a declaration of bigotry. After all, who gets to define marriage? Those already married? Without a compelling reason to deny marriage to gay people, a statement like this is hard to take seriously.

• But marriage has been restricted to heterosexuals for thousands of years. Many traditions outlive their usefulness. Slavery was an ancient practice too, after all. So was barring women from participation in politics. Once upon a time, people with disabilities were routinely locked away in institutions. Mercifully, times change.

• Marriage is for procreation. In many cases, yes. But infertile, straight couples marry all the time. So do those uninterested in having kids. Those past their child-bearing years aren’t forced to divorce. Having children isn’t the only thing that brings couples together.

• Same-sex couples don’t do as good a job raising children. There are all sorts of good parents and, alas, a wide variety of bad ones, too. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Nor is there a legislative push to ban other sorts of truly bad parents – child molesters, bank robbers – from marrying. No doubt each of New Hampshire’s 424 legislators has among his or her constituents gay couples raising children just fine. Examples that disprove this worry are easy to find.

• Same-sex marriage will start us down a slippery slope toward legalized polygamy and incest. No sign of this so far – in New Hampshire or in the places where gay marriage has a longer history. This is simply a scare tactic. In the off chance that they are actually presented with legislation proposing such notions, lawmakers could simply vote no.

• Gay relationships are immoral. Some religions do preach that. But lawmakers must represent all their constituents, not just those who share their religious beliefs. And they must not impose their own religious beliefs on their constituents. Freedom from religion is just as important as the freedom of religion.

• Same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage. In fact, encouraging marriage simply . . . encourages marriage. Hard to see how the gay marriage next-door threatens the straight marriage under your roof. Hard to imagine that the legalization of gay marriage is dissuading straight people from getting married or encouraging them to split up.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced the repeal measure in October, and the full House is expected to take it up later this month. Curiously, the legislation — which is also supported by the GOP presidential frontrunners — would replace marriage with civil unions and allow anyone to refuse to recognize the relationships and discriminate against such couples in employment, housing, and public accommodations.