Now is the time to “Rally” behind SB 27
Mar 23rd, 2009 by David Anderson
UPDATE: Marriage Protection Act wins support in committee. Victory in Phase 1. Phase 2 Thursday. All right thinking individuals are invited to Legislative Hall at 1 pm Thursday for a rally.
I supported the current law in Delaware which clarified that marriages recognized in our state are exclusively between a man and a woman. Now I support SB 27 which will make that age old principle constitutional law. Court decisions in few states have shown that the social engineers do not respect the laws of every state and the federal government. The only way to protect the collective wisdom of the ages is constitutional law. 30 states have done this regarding marriage. It is time for Delaware to begin the process of a Constitutional amendment. The Delaware process is slow and cumbersome. This means we can’t wait until a crisis is on our door step.
Some are making the wild argument that we shouldn’t pass a constitutional amendment keeping the status quo (which has existed our entire American history) because it would “using the constitution to deprive people of rights”. That would be like saying passing a law against bank robbery is depriving me of my money. If it was never mine in the first place, I can not be deprived of it. Same sex marriage never existed so keeping the status quo does not take anyone’s rights away. We are protecting the right of the people to make decisions and not a social engineer in a black robe in another state.
Some wonder why we need an amendment since we have a very well written defense of marriage law. I might have agreed that we didn’t a few years ago, but events have overtaken that point of view. Judges in this state may have to deal with divorces from Massachusetts or Connecticut. Without constitutional guidance, our judges could bring legal complexity and confusion to this state. The clear will of the people could be compromised. It happened in California and Maryland is grappling with this issue right now. Leadership is not about ducking your head down and hoping a problem doesn’t come to you. It is about being proactive.
Some wonderful people have bought into the argument that marriage as currently constituted is discriminatory because it is only between the sexes and does not include people of the same sex. That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law. Why can’t the lawyer just pass the insurance exam instead of the bar and be an attorney? Isn’t there some law involved in it? That’s silly, you say. They are serving different functions and they don’t do the same thing. Neither do same sex couples and mixed sex couples serve the same functions in society. Marriage serves a unique role because it fulfills a unique responsibility. It was developed to provide a stable, recognized structure to build a family. It has worked throughout human history. It’s success deserves preservation.
Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way. They complete each other. Sexually their organs are made to compliment each other. Emotionally, they are made to balance each other. Spiritually, they are made to complete each other. Biologically, only a man and a woman can perpetuate the species. Our species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment. Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality. It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another. We called it marriage. It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.
Around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not a confusing proposition. It is the bed rock of human civilization.
Some people would like to pretend that we are so busy with the budget that even though we can deal with hundreds of other issues, we don’t have time to take up this important issue. 20 years from now the budget crisis will be a distant memory. How we deal with marriage will be still be with us.
We the people of Delaware need to ensure our voices aren’t drowned out by the judicial social engineers This is why I will be at marriage rally at legislative hall, 1 pm Thursday. This is why I urge you call or email your legislators to support SB 27 (The marriage protection amendment).
Which “judicial social engineers” are you talking about?
Anyone who knows anything about the Delaware Supreme Court knows that our high court would NEVER decide this matter of public policy. The DE Supreme Court repeatedly stresses that the General Assembly should decide matters of public policy, not the courts.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is a risk of judicial social engineering. It may be a problem in places like New Jersey and Massachusetts, but not here.
David appears to favor legislative social engineers over the judicial variety.
This is a bill I suspect will be soundly defeated in the Delaware House, it it even makes it out of the Senate.
That would be an ok outcome if it were. It would just delay us not defeat us. That would mean wholesale changes in the house next year. The Democrat majority will be very short lived. Opposing the will of 70% of the public is not the best way for these new freshman to hold their seats. I suspect that they will be smarter than Tyler gives them credit for being.
I disagree Max, there is already said to be a case that Delaware may have to deal with regarding divorce from a same sex marriage originating in another state . It wouldn’t be the Delaware courts looking for the issue. It would be activists trying to press an issue.
Constitutional amendments work when they specifically grant rights and define powers.
Using any constitution to deny rights (no matter how you justify it) goes against the spirit of the document.
1) Same sex marriage is already against delaware code, so this amendment is futile.
2) It is wrong, supports bigotry and hatred, and is only there to stir up support because the DE GOP needs something to rally around since they were basically castrated last November.
It has nothing to do with the GOP. The bill is sponsored by more Democrats than Republicans the last time I checked. This issue transcends party. That is why I am hopeful the house Democrats will have the wisdom to support it. If not, they will have a problem.
You have it backwards, passing a law if it were in the Constitution would be futile. That is not true of the other way around.
The second argument that it supports bigotry and hatred is fallacious. It hardly needs defending. Just for the fun of it. You noted that the this would only reinforce the current state of the law not change the law. When I pushed for the current law in the 90′s we got an overwhelming number of republicans and democrats plus it was signed by then Governor Carper. Are you saying that Holloway, Carper, Wagner, the late Senator Conner, Marshall, Buckworth, Plant, Sharp, and McBride were all bigoted? I don’t think so. Strengthening the current law would obviously have nothing to do with bigotry unless you are prepared to say the current law and all of its supporters (including the vast majority of the public) are bigots. Make that argument if you wish. You will only insult the public.
David,
Obviously you know that we disagree completely on this issue.
Here’s my option: you can have marriage, defined in any way that religion wants to define it.
All the State should do, for purposes of preferential tax or legal treatment, is ratify civil unions.
But you won’t agree to that, will you?
“All the State should do, for purposes of preferential tax or legal treatment, is ratify civil unions.”
Civil unions for whom? Can I get a civil union with 2 women? With my sister?
Tom
If you want to constitute a household via civil union for the economic purposes that “marriage” is currently used in the United States, then I have no trouble with that at all. Right now you can live with two women or your sister (assuming any of these three consents) and do pretty much what you want-except certain legal things like qualify for joint insurance benefits, hospital visitations….
But it’s a nice try to divert attention from the real issue.
How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect state’s that acknowledge common-law marriage? Delaware doesn’t but some state’s do. If you had a roommate for 12 years (same sex) could one then sue for alimoney if the other moved out? What about the division of assets in the home? Would you have to prove (and how would you) that you didn’t have a romantic relationship? Is that even an issue in a “marriage.” I know a lot of couples who haven’t had relations in some time. Serious questions.
Somehow, ‘do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded wife’ doesn’t make much sense…
Nosy, you are diverting from the issue, which as Steve says is about “joint insurance benefits, hospital visitation”, and medical decision making and the like, which married heterosexual couples take for granted, and which SB-27 seeks to deny homosexual couples with their inane “defense of marriage” argument. I would think that in the absence of SB-27 becoming law, that common law marriage rules would apply.
And Rick, a civil union ceremony would choose the words appropriate to the occasion – no big deal!
David A, the defense of marriage argument that you folks foster is a smokescreen for your anti-gay agenda, in my view. I do not consider my heterosexual marriage under attack should my neighbor, both of whom are homosexuals, legalize their union, their household, their family, with a civil union. Your objection makes absolutely no sense to me!
David A, the defense of marriage argument that you folks foster is a smokescreen for your anti-gay agenda,
Is your defense of Hamas and Hizbollah a “smokescreen” for your anti-Semitic agenda, Perry?
Don’t like that, do you?
So you’re comparing your position to that of Hamas and “Hizbollah”, David?
Makes sense to me. You both are infected with religious fundamentalism and want to surreptitiously tunnel your way into your objective.
It’s not about defending “marriage”, it’s about your using law and power to enforce your personal socialistic disapproval and pseudo-moral reprobation of non-heteros and any equal rights, much less civil unions, they might have with the special heterosexuals like you.
No more special right for heterosexuals (or any ______sexuals)!
Quite revealing comment, David.
Hey Tyler, that was me — Hube.
No, I am not defending David’s position on this matter at all; what I am doing is comparing Perry’s invocation of “anti-gay” towards David to [anyone's] invocation of “anti-Semitic” towards Perry or anyone else when they stick up for groups like Hamas, Hizbollah and unilaterally denounce Israel.
That’s all. The point is that the latter doesn’t necessarily make one anti-Semitic; likewise, wanting to keep traditional marriage isn’t necessarily “anti-gay.”
Hube, my anti-gay remark is my opinion, just as your anti-Semitic remark is yours. However, I am in a position to tell you that you are wrong about my being anti-Semitic!
Your accusation is often used by those who object to any criticism of Israel, and it is very weak indeed.
Back to the topic of the defense of marriage, I think you will often find that those proponents of it are admittedly and forthright about being anti-gay, as is the agenda of many social conservatives, many of whom are in the forefront of this so-called “defense of marriage”.
Do you feel that your marriage is threatened, Hube, if we permit civil unions between same-gender adults?
So, Perry, if avid tells you he is not “anti-gay,” will you believe him? Many anti-Israel folks are indeed anti-Semitic, just you claim many anti-homosexual marriage folks are “anti-gay.” Why should we believe you, but not David?
To answer your last question — absolutely not, as you’d well know if you ever bother to read what people actually blog instead of coming in w/your canned agenda and responses.
My bad. My analogy nonetheless stands.
David is anti-”gay”. The bible tells him so.
Hube, if Israel represented the be-all end-all for all of Judaism your analogy might stand. But it doesn’t.
David wants to deny equal civil rights to all homosexuals, not just a small sect of them in some specific geographic location. He stands against all of them in one fell swoop.
Further, he paints his whole agenda as some sort of crusade to defend the pure against the sodomite gay huns at the gates. He has NEVER EVER answered how he suffers any actual harm, loss, or degradation to his own private marital arrangements from equalizing their legal recognition, without regard to the gender of the two marital partners.
David’s whole “defense of marriage” premise dehumanizes non-heterosexual partnerships as some heathen assault on civilization itself. I mean, really, give me a frigging break.
This hysteria, a la “the legislature better not be against 70% of people!!!” (a total statistical fabrication by the way) may be clever issue manipulation, but it holds no more water than any other attempt to deny equal protection to a discrete group on a purely-arbitrary or socio-religious basis.
I would ignore people like David were they not so absolute in self-righteousness and militant in seeing their world view imposed by force of law.
Tyler: Is David against civil unions? I apologize in advance if I’ve missed his stance on it. If he is, ok, fine. If not, that makes my analogy work just fine.
Given he is talking about marriage at law, I really can’t see the distinction in the term “civil union”. Civil union is, for all intents and purposes under law, the civil (versus religious) term for what some want to call “marriage” to load it with some mystical added meaning.
Whether or not David supports such distinctions, either nominally or at law, is not relevant given he seeks codification of special “civil union” rights for heterosexual citizens by omitting such rights for non-heterosexual citizens.
But if by “civil unions” homosexuals are granted the same rights as heterosexual “married” couples, then ultimately David’s point is moot. I think we oughta let him chime in on that before we continue.
And BTW, anti-Semitism doesn’t necessarily mean 100% anti-Judaism.
Hube, civil unions is not my issue, it would depend upon the legislation. I do not favor mandating the rights of marriage upon people who can not take on the responsibility of family. The concept of civil unions has some merit, but the application is not as innocuous due to the structure in the blue print legislation. I would likely oppose them do to the fact that they are an agenda driven vehicle to establish parity with marriage. If it is allowing a quick legal way for gay people to build a life together such as inheritance rights, joint purchases, health care decisions, financial transactions, health insurance and the like, I don’t care. The old domestic partnership legislation in CA was an example. Gays have a right to build their own institutions.
I do oppose CU if in the form put forward in CA, NJ and VT. In CA and NY, the existence of civil unions was used to challenge marriage under a separate but legal argument. They mandate recognition and protection from people who disagree such as grandma and grandpa renting a garage apartment or the church renting a hall for receptions. I don’t believe that the right of recognition is mandated, it is earned in the market place.
My answer is that I am opposed to non- discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation, openly proclaimed gays in the military, and hate crimes legislation. I don’t pretend to be in favor of equality on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe that homosexuality is not an activity worthy of legal protection nor worthy of legal prosecution. I do not believe that rights have any relation to the person with whom you choose to sleep. I just believe in treating everyone with equal dignity.
That is why I have no issue with the executive order in Delaware establishing non discrimination in government hiring. It is everyone’s government. I don’t have a problem with gay people in government choosing to make their partner a beneficiary in pensions, insurance, or other benefits. If I ran a company still, I would allow it in my company. Discrimination makes poor economic sense. Why hurt my bottom line because someone else is doing something which is between them and God? I basically take a let a person be attitude. It is not government’s role to interfere and certainly not criminalize. That goes both ways. Government should not mandate a person’s endorsement of lifestyles with which they disagree. The government is one thing, the private sector should be left to the market place.
Tyler: Scratch that, then! :-/
David, I am curious as to this line: I don’t believe that the right of recognition is mandated, it is earned in the market place.
Would the “market place” in the South, particularly, have permitted blacks and whites to live together, much less drink from the same fountains, and go to the same schools, the latter sans Brown v. Board of Ed.?
Short David analogy : I am fine with people being free but the institution of slavery has to be protected.
I consider the marriage issue paramount; the rest is negotiable. A fair number of people are all across the spectrum on this issue. They may favor preserving traditional marriage but seek other options for other. I respect that position. It is not mine.
After the SCOCA ruling, those of us who would consider Civil Unions got a cold chill from which we will never recover. It became clear that they were being used by activists as a tool to attack traditional people and traditional families in school curriculum, para-church outreaches, and room rentals in private homes. The activists want no compromise. That is unfortunate.
Hube, I don’t know what David’s position is on the gay issue, though I think Tyler makes a compelling point about his Bible.
Your perception of my being anti-Semitic is what it is, in spite of anything I might say to the contrary. But you leave me with having to deny it whenever it comes up, because that is my truth. Parenthetically, of course you are right about anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism, as Arabs are also Semites. BTW, I am also not anti-Judaism. Labels often are not accurate descriptors, and often are based on false assumptions.
Segregation was a government mandate so the issue is not the same. Once the mandate was overturned, it didn’t take long for most people to get along. The issue you three bring up is worthy of discussion. I will address it when I address HB 5.
Segregation was a government mandate so the issue is not the same.
Gays not being able to, well, marry, is a government mandate too.
As for Tyler’s slavery analogy, it is silly. It is the extreme gay activists who want to control everyone else, my side want to leave people alone.
I like what Judge Reid wrote in an Indiana court decision. Traditional marriage “promotes the state’s interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child…Same-sex couples are not similarly situated with opposite-sex couples who cannot reproduce because same-sex couples can never reproduce on their own as a categorical matter”. The court went on to state that we are maintaining “the related interest in promoting the traditional family as the basic living unit of a free society”. The court went on to document “the history of traditional marriage as a critical component of Western Civilization…the bedrock of society”, then noted “same sex marriage has not played a similar historical role”.
Again, David, the question you NEVER EVER answer : how does same-sex union affect yours or anyone else’s union in the slightest?
Government is about practical reality, not some ethereal religion-based affront in the minds of yours and other would-be theocrats.
So for the umpteenth time : name one practical or real way yours or anyone else’s union is actually diminished, degraded, harmed by someone else’s same-sex legal union?
Try not to veer off again into straw-man hyperbole and paranoia about “gay activists” and the “gay agenda” and similar such diversionary pablum.
“the state’s interest in encouraging”
Kind of like the state’s interest in having a constant supply of near-free slave labor to ensure economic progress?
Sounds quite leftist to me….seeking to have the state regulating and engineering “procreation” and family affairs.
Nothing like a little religion-based socialism to unmask those who truly are not liberty-loving conservatives.
With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
“Short David analogy : I am fine with people being free but the institution of slavery has to be protected.” – TPN
Actually TPN your slavery analogy was interesting. What happened to slavery in the US when the slaves were freed?
Slavery was destroyed in the US.
So if you are to compare traditional marriage to slavery in that fashion then I hope you see where that leads. If the parallels are any good it leads to the destruction of marriage.
One problem with the analogy is that most people agree that the institution of slavery was a bad thing. On the other hand I believe people still generaly agree that the institution of marriage is a good thing. We don’t really want it destroyed, do we?
For the umpteenth time, I do not ask that anyone’s union be banned nor am I advocating the separating of people who live together. I am not proposing the slightest interference in anyone’s lifestyle. I am not even proposing changing the legal status of anyone’s relationship except to say that I am open to streamlining the legal bureaucracy for shared financial transactions and medical decisions. What do I ask, that we stop the madness which is being funded by a few secular radicals in an effort to remake society.
They are not shy about their objectives which is their right as free people. It is not a figment of my imagination. As the Chief Justice of Quebec, Michel Robert said in The National Post, “We are defining the fundamental socio-economic values of the society”. American Judy Guerin of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom proclaimed a goal of changing the “sexual ethos” of America. Agree or disagree if you like but don’t pretend that this is not a coordinated well funded agenda driven movement.
Tim, you hit the nail on the head. The radicals see no value in marriage. They see it as some oppressive institution which makes it weird that after decades of attacking it through laws which weakened it, they want to expand it. NOT so fast, their real agenda is the same one they have had for 50 years, undermine it.
Here we go again with “the institution of marriage”. We are talking statutes and substantive equal protection here, not some grand vision of society justifying government-engineered social institutions. Or is that what you believe the role of law and government dictate is?
As far as “destroying marriage” I would say roughly half of all (heterosexual) marrieds are doing just fine in accomplishing this end.
My slavery analogy was not about the effect involved but of the hypocrisy of saying you support no interference with relationships, just as the other side of your mouth wants government defining it in a way that does exactly that in quite a narrow discriminatory manner.
Now, you see, because of the way some of the comments in defense of SB27 went, I am going to weigh this down with a partial copy-paste of my post from last week on this very same topic, because it appears that was conveniently overlooked:
“As far as “destroying marriage” I would say roughly half of all (heterosexual) marrieds are doing just fine in accomplishing this end.” TPN
Those INDIVIDUAL marriages are destroyed because of personal failures, not successes. If marriage as an institution were destroyed, as per your analogy, the perpetrators of that destruction would consider it a success not a failure, a triumph rather than a dissapointment. I hope that is not where we stand as a society.
“Here we go again with “the institution of marriage”. We are talking statutes and substantive equal protection here, not some grand vision of society justifying government-engineered social institutions. Or is that what you believe the role of law and government dictate is?” – TPN
If the real goal is equal protection, not some grand vision of society and social institutions, then go for equal protection. Leave the social institution of marriage alone and get the equal protection you desire for people.
“If the real goal is equal protection, not some grand vision of society and social institutions, then go for equal protection. Leave the social institution of marriage alone and get the equal protection you desire for people.”
I’m all for leaving the institution alone, and that means taking marriage – and all those automatic benefits – out of the state’s hands. Let’s let everyone set our on their own, or hire a lawyer, to gain those automatic marriage benefits. Not sure how to do that, or how much it will cost? Ask a gay couple.
“My slavery analogy was not about the effect involved but of the hypocrisy of saying you support no interference with relationships, just as the other side of your mouth wants government defining it in a way that does exactly that in quite a narrow discriminatory manner.” – TPN
My point is that your analogy also reveals a certain hypocrisy, or perhaps willfull ignorance from the other direction. The desired result is freedom, nothing is going to be destroyed, however the only way to get the desired freedom from slavery is to destroy slavery, and the only way to get the desired freedom of relationships from traditional marriage is to destroy marraige. The main difference being when the US destroyed slavery it was replaced by a new institution called segregation. The title of slavery was not kept because it would not have been accurate and it wasn’t a desired title. When marriage is destroyed, it will be replaced by a new institution, however this time they want to keep the title of marriage. That title as opposed to slavery is desired.
“My slavery analogy was not about the effect involved but of the hypocrisy of saying you support no interference with relationships, just as the other side of your mouth wants government defining it in a way that does exactly that in quite a narrow discriminatory manner.” – TPN
Perhaps the people that want homosexual marriage don’t know what they really want. Perhaps they don’t all agree on what they want. However, I would like to see an honest recognition from them of what the results of the legislation they push will be, and how it will effect religion and society. I haven’t seen that yet. Most of the time I see a total refusal from the other side to even look at the possibility that religions, and traditional families could be adversely impacted by their legislation in any way. Please acknowledge that there will be an impact and ask us to make that sacrifice, don’t ignore it just because it doesn’t mean anything to you.
“I’m all for leaving the institution alone, and that means taking marriage – and all those automatic benefits – out of the state’s hands. Let’s let everyone set our on their own, or hire a lawyer, to gain those automatic marriage benefits. Not sure how to do that, or how much it will cost? Ask a gay couple.” – Pandora
Your still missing it. If your real goal is equality, and not to change a traditional institution, then you can acheive it without disparaging or altering what marriage has been traditionally. Think outside the box and achieve what you want without hurting, or disparaging others that think differently. It can be done. If the goal is equality then I think we need to hit the reset button on the debate and start from scratch, because that goal has been lost sight of.
That ACLU statement is honestly a joke in my opinion and shows the organization’s gross lack of understanding of and for the religious community.
Smitty, We read your post with interest and commented upon it. I found it technically true. I disagree that it would not indirectly affect religious people and institutions.
It already is. In NJ, the civil rights commission sanctioned a church for not renting its pavilion for a civil union ceremony. In ME, the Salvation Army lost grant money because it did not provide benefits to same sex couples. In CA, Baptist and Catholic hospital were told that if they accepted patients not of their faith that they would have to provide employee benefits consistent with married couples to those who are in civil unions. Those are just for starters. Once again, it is not out of the figment of conservative imagination that these concerns arise.
David, the argument you folks are making is that allowing gay marriage destroys traditional marriage between a man and a woman. You say that traditional marriage must be protected.
You have been asked numerous times to delineate exactly how traditional marriage would be destroyed; neither you or Tim have answered that question, because you have no answer to it.
The examples you just gave do not address this question either. They are merely anecdotal incidences in which there is a dispute involving other issues having nothing to do with destroying traditional marriage.
Thus, you have not prevailed in this debate, because you have not answered the fundamental question raised by your own objection to gay marriage.
We have prevailed. We will win every ballot vote put up anywhere in the nation.
We have showed that if marriage is anything then it is nothing. It is a unique institution which predated government and radically redefining it demands overwhelming evidence of a public good. It is not about the good of the many, but the feelings of a few. The quote I gave by the chief justice of Quebec illustrates this fact. It is about remaking the social order not equal rights.
The truth is Tim and I don’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on those who would change 6 to 100 thousand years of human custom. The same people who told us no fault divorce would be fine are the same ones telling us that redefining marriage is great. There is not a bit of proof to support them. There are preliminary statistics from the few places which have started experimenting with gay marriage. Rates of marriage are down and divorce is up. Illegitimacy is up, and family stability is down. I admit it is too early to tell so why don’t we wait 50 years and i will discuss it then.
You still have not answered the fundamental question, David!
Perry: Pot meet Kettle, eh?
And David, be grateful that you were not born homosexual, otherwise you would feel the wrath of the David Anderson’s of this world. Is this the real David Anderson speaking here?
6 to 100 thousand years of human custom
LOL. Let’s just say I wouldn’t hire you as an accountant or a statistician, David.
“And Rick, a civil union ceremony would choose the words appropriate to the occasion..”
Fine, but that isn’t marriage. Words have meaning, and a marriage requires a husband and a wife.
Rick, you need to check your Webster’s, David too. Nowhere in the meaning of the word “marriage” is the meaning you just assigned to it, nor the meaning David has invented as well.
With you two guys it’s all about ideology, otherwise known as religion. I don’t buy it!
Maybe you should check Black’s instead my friend.
I guess this is the real David Anderson. David, I am just amazed at your position on this issue. How sad!