When the clock strikes midnight tonight, it will mark more than simply the start of a new year for some couples in Maryland — it’s also when Maryland’s new marriage equality law officially takes effect. Some same-sex weddings are already planned for the first moments of 2013.

Since New Year’s Day is a government holiday, courthouses across Maryland are closed. But that didn’t stop Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) from taking steps to ensure that same-sex couples won’t have to wait any longer for marriage equality. Rawlings-Blake will open Baltimore’s city hall tonight to allow at least seven same-sex couples to get married, and the mayor plans to serve as an official witness for the wedding ceremonies:

“New Years Day will have a new meaning for the hundreds — if not thousands — of couples who will finally have the right to marry the person they love,” said Mayor Rawlings-Blake.

“It is a remarkable achievement for Maryland, and we are excited to open City Hall to host some of the first wedding ceremonies in our great state. Newly married couples will stand before their friends and family to profess their love and commitment to each other. This is what we worked for, and I am looking forward to take part in this historic and jubilant day.”

The first couple to be married at City Hall will be a longtime aide to the mayor and his partner of 35 years. And even though the courthouses in other Maryland cities may not be open, the early marriage licenses that some same-sex couples in the state were able to begin applying for in December will become official at midnight tonight.

After sweeping LGBT victories in November expanded marriage equality across several states, same-sex couples also began getting married in Washington earlier this month and in Maine earlier this week.

Father Richard T. Lawrence

As many Catholic leaders have done, Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori required all parish priests to read a letter from him this past Sunday denouncing marriage equality and encouraging parishioners to vote no on Maryland’s Question 6. When Father Richard T. Lawrence read the letter this past weekend at Baltimore’s St. Vincent de Paul church, he then added his own thoughts, breaking from Lori and the Vatican to suggest that voting for marriage equality may be the Catholic thing to do.

According to BuzzFeed, the response was swift. Lori asked that Lawrence’s homily be removed from the church’s website, though no other punitive action has been taken. Here are some excerpts from Lawrence’s remarks as reported in the Catholic Reporter:

LAWRENCE: I will continue to stand in genuine awe of all those couples — straight, gay and lesbian — hose day-to-day, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade faithfulness to each other is to me a sacrament, a believable embodied sign, of the absolute faithfulness of God to us all. [...]

While the federal courts respect the rights of churches not to hire anyone for a ministerial position whose marriage does not comply with the laws of that church, we do hire and pay spousal benefits, such as medical insurance, for employees whose marriages are not valid in the eyes of church law. It seems to me, therefore, that even if we do not believe that gay marriage ever could or should be allowed in the church, we could live with a provision that allows civil marriage of gay and lesbian couples. Personally, however, I would go farther than that. [...]

Could we not then say that their devotion to and support of each other … could be recognized by the church as a valid sacrament of God’s unrelenting faithfulness to us just as much as the union of an elderly straight couple? Neither will procreate children, but both can be sacraments of God’s faithfulness in the living out of their commitment to each other.

Lawrence said he will not perform same-sex marriages, but he will continue to attend the weddings of gays and lesbians “whom I love and support.” He encouraged his parishioners to rethink Lori’s suggested vote:

But could not civil law be allowed to progress where church law cannot go, at least not yet? Personally, I believe that it can and that it should. So there you have it: the official teaching of the church and my personal reflections.

The St. Vincent parishioners responded with a standing ovation.

The Baltimore Sun published a detailed endorsement Tuesday of Question 6, Maryland’s referendum on marriage equality. Not only did the editorial board affirm that the law would “treat everyone the same” and protect religious freedom to not solemnize same-sex unions, but they took ample time to dispel opponents’ “scare tactics,” rebutting claims made about straight victims and kids learning about same-sex marriage. Instead, the Sun points out that marriage equality will benefit children and families:

As for Maryland’s children, this law only improves their welfare. Thousands of Maryland children are being raised by same-sex parents in this state already. Allowing their parents the chance to marry strengthens their families and provides them with crucial protections under the law. More fundamentally, it recognizes that their families are equal to everyone else’s.

The board also points out that out-of-state same-sex marriages are already recognized because of a recent court decision, so rejection Question 6 is pointless sacrifice of state income that helps nobody:

If that happens, Maryland will lose more than the money those couples would have spent here on cakes, photographers, caterers and florists. Some couples, no doubt, will return to Maryland to settle down, but others will surely decide to stay someplace where the law fully recognizes their value as members of the community.

Nothing short of marriage equality will accomplish that. Civil unions and domestic partnerships in some states have sought to afford gay families the same packages of rights and benefits as married couples — a difficult and usually incomplete task, given the number of laws that reference marriage in one way or another. But that approach creates two kinds of marriage — one for straight people and one for gay people — and that inevitably relegates same-sex couples to second-class citizenship.

Polls over the past few months (August 2, September 26, October 1, October 18) have all shown strong support for marriage equality, though a new poll this week shows a much tighter race. The Baltimore Sun has spelled out a very clear case for supporting the measure, but now it’s up to voters to ignore conservative fear-baiting and vote in the best interest of Maryland families.

Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun editorial board condemned the Maryland Marriage Alliance for its “spurious arguments” that marriage equality will somehow impact school curricula or the rights of business owners. The editorial correctly points out that the Maryland General Assembly’s marriage equality law did nothing to impose on school curriculum, which is maintained by superintendents and school boards. Similarly, public accommodations are already protected under state law, and thus business owners are no more entitled to refuse to serve same-sex couples now than they would be if those couples’ relationships are recognized. The Baltimore Sun concludes with a bold endorsement of Question 6:

The opponents are resorting to spurious arguments to convince voters that the law will somehow be unfair to those with objections to gay marriages because they don’t want to face the real question of fairness at stake. Should the law treat people differently because of their sexual orientation? Or should everyone be treated equally? Maryland’s gay marriage ordinance doesn’t require anyone to violate their religious beliefs or personal conscience. As much as we hope the debate over this issue will persuade everyone in the state of the value of acceptance and tolerance, the law doesn’t force anyone to change the way they think. All it does is to remove a major vestige of discrimination from state law, and that is something all Marylanders should be able to support.

The Baltimore County Council is primed to pass a measure protecting transgender people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, but opponents of the change continue to attack transgender people as threats to women’s safety. Many have spoken on both sides of the issue before the council, but at yesterday’s meeting, 15 people spoke against the protections while only one defended them. Here are some of the transphobic thoughts shared at the meeting and with local media this week:

• Tina Siegert, resident of Catonsville: “I have not had good sleep in the past few weeks because of this bill. The thought of a man being in a [women's] restroom just unnerves me.”
• William Howard, former councilman: “This bill is a steppingstone in causing children to sin. [Advocates] will eventually come here and ask for more liberties that would be considered outrageous today.”
• Unidentified organizer against the bill: “We dug and found out this bill is just a monster… As a grandparent and a parent, it’s just very upsetting. There are rape victims who are real concerned about this. They’ve been through it. I mean, you’re going to be in the lady’s room, dressing room, locker room, public shower possibly, and here comes a man dressed as a woman who’s going to undress and you’re undressed in front of him.”
• Unidentified “ex-transgender” representing Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays: “The confusion it brings to the minds of children. When you think of a little girl in a bathroom and there’s a man. You can tell it’s a man but then has a wig on.”

Opponents of transgender equality regularly smear the community as predators to try to obscure the fact that they are significant victims of discrimination throughout society. Last year’s National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that trans people regularly face workplace harassment (90 percent), employment discrimination (47 percent), housing discrimination (19 percent), homelessness (19 percent), public harassment (53 percent), denial of equal treatment by government officials (29 percent), denial of medical care (19 percent), and poverty rates four times the national average. To define the protections with a myth that bathrooms will somehow become less safe is to completely disregard the entire life experiences of transgender people.

The council is expected to vote on the measure on February 14.