The title of John Kennedy’s famous book, “Profiles in Courage,” was intended to make the point that elected officials don’t always act courageously — indeed, that courage is a rare commodity.

Last week, in discussing the General Assembly’s failure in 2011 to pass the Marriage Equality Act, Maryland’s first lady, Katie O’Malley, pinned the fault on members of the legislature who had been “cowards.” Both she and the governor later backed away from that language and apologized for it in the face of vocal public criticism, but that certainly doesn’t put an end to the issue that she raised.

What is the correct way to characterize legislators who initially supported the proposal and had even signed on as co-sponsors, but then made abrupt reversals after coming under pressure from church groups in their districts? Should we describe them as opportunistic or cynical for supporting legislation that they had not thought would pass the state Senate? Should we describe them as irresponsible for signing onto a bill without really having thought about it? Should we describe them as flip-floppers for being for the proposal before they were against it?

Whatever your opinion on these questions, you would certainly not describe those legislators as courageous. Given her high public profile, Katie O’Malley’s comment drew more reaction than if it had been uttered by most public figures. Nevertheless, her point about the legislation failing last session because of the lack of resolution of a small number of delegates is right on target.

A basic reality of the legislative process is that members of the General Assembly are influenced in their voting decisions by constituents, lobbyists, staff, the executive branch and others. On many bills, that interaction is largely out of public view and not subject to real scrutiny. On some occasions, however, the process is much more visible. Given the strong emotions and intense public debate that same-sex marriage provokes, the positions of legislators on the marriage equality bill were certain to be closely examined by supporters and opponents alike.

That it was churches that brought pressure on delegates doesn’t make their actions any less political than those of a hired lobbyist. Legislators were contacted, pressure was applied, and consequences were threatened. All of that is legitimate advocacy in our system of government, but it is advocacy that should have been anticipated by those legislators who co-sponsored a bill that they later abandoned.

Marriage equality is back on the legislative agenda this year and once again is getting lots of attention. For its supporters, it is a matter of basic fairness, what many have called a civil rights issue. For opponents, the arguments against marriage equality are some mix of religious views and a belief that a traditional institution is under attack. Gov. O’Malley, who stayed out of the fight last year, has this time identified the issue as one of his top legislative priorities.

Hot-button social issues like this one bring out many people who normally are not very involved in the political process and tend to be debated with more emotion and more intensity than the normal fare of the legislature. They also bring out an ugly side of politics among some who engage in the debate.

Last year, for example, state Sen. Jim Brochin (D-Dist. 42) of Towson was unsure about his position until he heard the invective and name-calling of the opponents. He also had been moved by some of the stories of colleagues who described the legal barriers that are created for people in same-sex relationships, but the bigotry and hatred of some critics is what convinced Brochin to make a public statement of support for the legislation.

Another view came from Del. Keiffer Mitchell, whose family history in the struggle for equality matches anyone’s. Mitchell (D-Dist. 44) of Baltimore argued that this legislation is for him fundamentally a civil rights issue, and he has been one of the bill’s leading champions.

I don’t question the sincerity of the beliefs of those who oppose the marriage equality bill, but I do disagree with their determination to impose their personal values on others. Same-sex marriage poses no threat to heterosexual couples or to the sanctity of traditional marriage. Be as happy as you want and wish the same for others.

How will this issue play out in the 2012 session? Frankly, I don’t know. The governor’s support certainly adds to its prospects for success, but the greater attention being paid to it from the start also puts more pressure on legislators who will be forced into a public position on a controversial matter. Opponents are better organized this year, because they realize that there is a real chance of passage.

That gets us back to the courage issue. It’s easy to hide behind pressure from an organized group, especially a church in your district, as a justification for not supporting marriage equality. Standing up and being for equal rights may be politically tougher, but it really is what John Kennedy’s book was about and is the standard that elected officials should have for themselves.

Laslo Boyd does consulting in higher education, public policy and politics. His email address is lvboyd@gmail.com.