Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Statutory Language Inclusion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

HB2 would replace 'church' and 'clergyman' with inclusive language in Maryland code; sponsor, faith groups back the change

5864761 · March 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sponsor told the Rules Committee HB2 replaces antiquated references to 'church' and 'clergyman' across the code with 'faith institution' and 'member of clergy'; sponsors said the Senate passed a similar version 45–1 after further edits.

Delegate Stewart presented House Bill 2 to the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee. The sponsor said the bill replaces references to the words "church" (142 instances in the code) and "clergyman" (9 instances) with gender-neutral and inclusive language — substituting "faith institution" and "member of clergy" where appropriate.

"This bill simply changes all those references, mostly in, like, the tax and zoning article to faith institution," the sponsor said. He told the committee the Senate made word‑smithing edits and passed the measure 45–1 on the Senate floor after revising the definition of "faith institution" to list Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu congregations and "any other religious society, congregation, or denomination." He also said some provisions use "place of worship" where the code refers to a physical location.

Ken Phelps, speaking for the Maryland Episcopal Public Policy Network and identifying himself as Linda Boyd for the record, testified in support and said the change would be inclusive of multiple faith expressions. Committee members asked clarifying questions about distinctions between a faith institution and a place of worship and whether the changes would inadvertently convert neutral public buildings into faith institutions; the sponsor and witnesses said the terms are intended to distinguish organizational status versus physical location and that local practice determines age‑appropriate or usage questions.

The hearing concluded with no committee vote recorded.