Dover Citizens Rally Against Same Sex Marriage
May 28th, 2009 by David Anderson
The issue of Same Sex Marriage brought out a crowd even larger than the Comprehensive plan. People were not in agreement with the notion that our city should push for marriages of people who by definition can’t be marriage partners. Some opponents seemed a little over the top. “This world is on its way to destruction if you allow this to pass,” stated one young, 18 year old gentleman who just started what will hopefully be a journey of activism. Ok. Fortunately, I doubt that I will get to see if he is right because the outpouring from the community killed this issue. Even if the Human Relations Commission manages to pass the resolution, it would be dead on arrival to city council.
In my opinion, the stars of the evening were not mentioned in the news story. Nicole Theis of the Delaware Family Policy Council was incredible. Her talk produced the greatest applause of the night and reminded us all of the importance of family and the value its unity gives to children. One the other side was an 18 year old young lady (senior from Polytech) who claimed to be who claimed to be bisexual. She did not intend to speak but gave a very effective impromptu speech. She calmly expressed her wonder on how her choice of love would destroy the world. Rev. Anthony Wallace rallied the pro marriage side with insights and facts which definitely inspired the commissioners to start taking notes. I was told that my testimony was impactful by some members of the commission (most importantly) as well as members of the public, but I was not left out of the news story.
We know were Dover stands. Thanks to Daniel, Jordan, and of course Nicole for informing the citizens. It was also great to see a solid showing from the 9/12 project.
“This world is on its way to destruction if you allow this to pass,” stated one young, 18 year old gentleman who just started what will hopefully be a journey of activism”
Come on David that’s the crap we heard when minorites were granted the right to vote.
The man (world) has been on it’s way to destruction since he bagan to walk.
Man has a free choice to destroy himself or his brother and God has the choice to destroy all.
Why did God give us tolerance?
Did I not say that I thought it was over the top? He is 18. I don’t know him well personally, but he wants to become more active in public affairs. I think that is a good thing. Even if I do not agree with him on that score. The young man is availing himself of his civic responsibilities instead of doing an hundred harmful things that many his age are doing. He volunteers to help young kids. He is a good guy who apparently thinks the world is the verge of ending.
I guess I saw humor in the remark. At least he got a moment in the paper as one of the lead quotes. It will encourage him to speak his mind in the Democratic process. The more time he gets around people with a more seasoned perspective in the movement, the more perspective he will have. When I said little over the top, I sort of thought you guys would feel the sarcasm. I think the young man got caught up in the passion of the moment. I don’t think that will cause a wave of intolerance to sweep Dover.
It wasn’t the only one made by some one that I wish weren’t but as the paper said everything was respectful and decent. Most of the people were on point.
The reason I wrote the post is because I thought acknowledging what Nicole and Rev. Wallace said was more representative of the testimony than the sensational quote.
David Anderson
“The young man is availing himself of his civic responsibilities instead of doing an hundred harmful things that many his age are doing. He volunteers to help young kids. He is a good guy who apparently thinks the world is the verge of ending.”
Yes, it is wonderful seeing young people out and about speaking thier mind. The world as we know will end one day as mankind is not worthy of such a great gift. I use to have a negative view on the gay issues but when we talk of freedom and rights I must yield.
We all have the right to support or oppose our positions that’s the beauty of our country. However, seeing people just living their lives harming no one being persecuted seems un-American.
I agree. I don’t believe that gays should be viewed negatively and certainly reject persecution or prosecution of them. I am thankful that the day of using the law to bash gays into silence is gone.
If you used to have a negative view of gays, then you understand what I mean when I would rather take issue with a statement than with a good hearted person. How would you have felt if instead of some one you respect saying, “you know that is just out there, over the top”, they blasted you and called you names. I would bet that you “became more tolerant” because of loving responses rather than exclusion and berating.
I don’t believe marriage has anything to do with persecution of anyone therefore that wouldn’t apply to this discussion.
I thought last night’s public meeting went well for the most part. There were a few hickups, such as insufficient seating and the microphone issues when they first opened up the floor, but we got past that.
I wish they would have had the meeting before creating a resolution. They may have followed all the rules for their committee however given the sensitive nature of this hot button issue I think they were somewhat careless and rushed. They tossed out a piece of red meat and people responded. Fortunatly most of us responded respectfully, but even so there were unintended consequenses. That highschool girl no doubt felt like the whole room of people was against her, when such is not the case.
For a commission that is supposed to foster possitive human relations I think this was not the best move. It should have been more carefully planned. At the very least the commission should have met in person to discuss how to adress the issue rather than introducing the resolution to the commission by email and trying to conduct such sensitive business in such an impersonal way. Also they could have listened to the wishes of the public before drafting a resolution. Then we would have started with a resolution that actually reflected the City of Dover and its desires, not a resolution that runs contrary to the wishes of most of the people of Dover based on one persons ideas.
David Anderson
“then you understand what I mean when I would rather take issue with a statement than with a good hearted person”
Sometimes I have to backup because there is a distraction when a blog is clearly political in nature. When there is a post pro-political positions readers are ready to pouch on it as if were bait.
“ I don’t believe marriage has anything to do with persecution of anyone therefore that wouldn’t apply to this discussion.”
The topic is same sex marriages! There is not persecution if it were heterosexual but being homosexual there is persecution by protester. I agree that a church has a right to approve or disapprove of gay marriage . However, government is governor by the constitution not the bible. Government shouldn’t judge morals using the bible as a tool or as guidance. If that were the case than government should abide by thou shall not kill.
David post;
“People were not in agreement with the notion that our city should push for marriages of people who by definition can’t be marriage partners.”
Tim J
“Then we would have started with a resolution that actually reflected the City of Dover and its desires, not a resolution that runs contrary to the wishes of most of the people of Dover based on one persons ideas.”
Tim J, I am looking at this as two issues which one being the issues of same sex marriages and now your position on the meeting process itself. David’s post title is “Dover Citizens Rally Against Same Sex Marriages.” It didn’t come across to me as a rally to protest the commission proceedings. The goal apparently was to express opposition to same sex marriages. Where is you position on same sex marriages or was you involvement strictly concern with to commission procedures?
Both, I think that with this resolution, as well as how they have gone about it the Dover Human Relations Commission is failing and even violating its commission and stated goals.
I also oppose the resolution and the legislation it advocates. I do not support legislation that creates doctrines that bring the government and religion together in conflict. Though I think it a travesty that Justic Black built the wall of separation of church and state into this nation’s case law it is there now. Measures that bring religion and government together in convlict breach that wall of separation just as much as measures which attempt to legislate religion and often with greater harm and contention.
I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the only marriage that should be supported by our society. It offers benefits that no other contrived form of marriage can. As human beings homosexuals have human rights, privileges, and responsibilities the same as heterosexuals. I do not believe that government licensing same sex couples together in marriage is required to meet any of those.
“I do not support legislation that creates doctrines that bring the government and religion together in conflict”
Then you’d have to outlaw divorces.
“As human beings homosexuals have human rights, privileges, and responsibilities the same as heterosexuals. I do not believe that government licensing same sex couples together in marriage is required to meet any of those.”
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth there. Of course there are “marriage benefits” that are required if actually believe the first part of your sentence.
IF you actually believe the first part of your sentence
“Then you’d have to outlaw divorces.” – Mark H
The concept of divorce does not violate the religions that I am aware of. Some religions may not agree with all forms of divorce, but the general concept is found in religion.
“You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth there. Of course there are “marriage benefits” that are required if [you] actually believe the first part of your sentence.”
- Mark H
Any bennefit of marriage that is a human bennefit should be attainable by all humans with or without marriage. Some of those should probably be made easier to obtain through other means than marriage than they currently are. Other bennefits of marriage are not human bennefits but actual bennefits intrinsic to the bond of traditional matrimony. Such as bringing together the talents, skills, and personalities of two people of opposite sex. Giving birth to and rearing a child that you and your spouse helped create together is another bennefit. Those are not bennefits of being human but rather bennefits of the choices you make, in this case the choice to be married. Those bennefits are not confered by legislation, they are simply recognized by religion and/or society when a man and woman are married.
I hope I have been able to clarify my possition some though I fully realize that I am not always able to communicate my thoughts the way I would like. I also realize that if your intent is to attack and tear down my opinion you will likely find ways to do so.
I also hope you realize that not all choices are recognized the same by law even if they are similar and can have similar outcomes. One example is when going into business. Everyone that starts a new business makes some choices that are very similar on the surface, however there are different legalities involved in forming a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation, and the variety of other hybrid forms of business. The rights, privileges, and responsibilities of each as proscribed by law are different. The benefits to government and society from the different forms of business also vary. Then there are also different laws if the business you choose to start is a restaurant, a law office, a retail store, or a construction contractor. There are yet other laws that apply if you choose to do business in a way that does not require a license such as some babysiting, or lawn care work arangements. Finally there is a set of laws for businesses that can not be licensed such as dealing drugs and some forms of gambling.
David,
Although you are certainly aware that we don’t agree on this issue, I just wanted to say that when I read this…
One the other side was an 18 year old young lady (senior from Polytech) who claimed to be who claimed to be bisexual. She did not intend to speak but gave a very effective impromptu speech. She calmly expressed her wonder on how her choice of love would destroy the world.
I was appreciative of the fact that you reflected favorably on the young lady with the different opinion and took the time to represent her views accurately. I appreciate the intellectual integrity in doing so.
“The concept of divorce does not violate the religions that I am aware of.”
Ever heard of Catholicism or the Jewish faith? There are many churches that will not allow a 2nd marriage to be recognized in the Church. So for quite a few people, the second marriage has nothing to do with religion.
You made the point originally that “I do not support legislation that creates doctrines that bring the government and religion together in conflict” and quite clearly divorce does. Additionally, there is a lot of legislation that “conflicts” with religion.
“also realize that if your intent is to attack and tear down my opinion you will likely find ways to do so.”
I’m just pointing out the logical fallacies of your position.
“Ever heard of Catholicism or the Jewish faith? There are many churches that will not allow a 2nd marriage to be recognized in the Church. So for quite a few people, the second marriage has nothing to do with religion.” – Mark H
Look divorce is a practice of religion. It may preclude you from certain future rights and privileges within that religion however it is a part of all the religions I am aware of even if the specifics differ. It appears in both the Old and New Testaments. Second marriage may conflict with some religions but as far as I am aware (and this may be from a lack of thorough research on my part) the government has made no resolutions on the doctrine of second marriages. It just licenses them, and doesn’t take into account whether the marriage is the first, second or Xth marriage for a person.
“Additionally, there is a lot of legislation that “conflicts” with religion.” – Mark H
You haven’t specified what that legislation is but as of yet I have not mentioned any legislation that I support which brings religion and government into conflict. Just because a law exists doesn’t mean I am for it. And to further clarify my opposition is really when government seeks to create law that is doctrinal in nature and designed to supercede, compete with, or counteract the established doctrines of religions and the standard practices of the people in this nation. If the wall of separation exists to keep religion and government from supporting one another, such as the ruling which blocks public schools from supporting the practice of prayer, then the reverse should also be true. It should serve to block conflicts between the two yet it does not. Rather some seek to use the wall to cage in religion rather than allow its free exersize.
“Look divorce is a practice of religion.”
NO IT’S NOT!!!
“its a part of all the religions I am aware of ”
Then you’re not aware of many religions.
We are just going to disagree on this.
I agree with you Tim that the effort was ill conceived if the idea is to bring unity. It is not the subject to pick.
In a weird way, it did unite 90% of the public.
Thank you Steve. I thought her testimony was one of the highlights of the night. It deserved to be presented. The paper only has a limited space and probably did not want to distort the coverage ratio. I understand that, but out of all of the testimony that I have heard, she was a star because she spoke from the heart.
She did not attack her opponents. She did not mischaracterize anyone. She spoke in calm, thoughtful, but moving way.
I think 90 percent of the people were moved in some way even if most disagreed with her conclusions. I can tell because the testimony after her was less logical and more emotional as if to recapture the emotional momentum. The fact is the night was a total rout until she testified. I bet she kept at least 5 votes in line on the commission. That is significant. I predict the resolution will be tabled or fail out right, but if it is not then that will be the moment which saved it. Of course it will be DOA on the next step.
If I am reporting what happened, I would be remiss to leave out one of the 3 or 4 most significant moments. I am sort of surprised the paper did not see the same significance.
David, were there a lot of non-Doverites there? The article seems to indicate so, but wasn’t clear.
Of the people speaking, the majority were from the Dover area, but the meeting was open to anyone because they felt that the proposed legislation affecting Dover would also have an impact on other areas.
Actually, over 90% of the people were from the Dover Area and 80% of the speakers. Tim is correct that this affected everyone so no one was discriminated against. Some of the 20% of speakers like Rev. Avant who lives in nearby Camden represents about 8000 people in Dover as head of the Interdenominational Ministers Alliance. Nicole and Jordan represent hundreds of members in Dover. The 9/12 project also has a substantial Dover membership. So even most of the speakers who were not in Dover proper represented people in Dover.