Victory for Tradional Marriage in Dover
Jun 25th, 2009 by David Anderson
Wednesday Night the Dover Human Relations Commission heeded the public and voted down a resolution calling for “Same sex” marriage in Delaware. An effort to reword the resolution also failed.
We are also protecting Traditional Marriage Argentian style. So that is good. The fewer gays married, the stronger the traditional. We could propose a Constitutional Amendment mandating a physical exam whereas all those intended to marry must have different sexual organs with that difference being decided/validated by a State Board of Examiners, maybe using the DMV inspection facilities. Go GOP go.
I would love to put this vote to referendum to really see what the public believes is right. i am guessing same sex marriage would win 7-6
I was happy to see that at the meeting there were more commissioners interested in hearing what the people had really to think about the issue, that those wanting to dictate new policy to the city and state without first gathering information. The idea of referendum came up several times durring their discussion.
Marriage is off the commission’s agenda for now. At some point it will probably be brought back. Hopefully when that happens it will be through the commission’s intake process, rather than a commission member looking at the news and deciding to be an activist.
Honestly, a referendum would be a waste of money unless people petitioned to bring it. In this community traditional marriage is not controversial. There is not any state in this country where a ballot measure supporting marriage didn’t pass. The lone exception of Arizona resolved itself the next election when the language was cleaned up. This is an issue to the 21% of liberals.
It would not be appropriate for the intake process because there is no legal basis for taking it. The Commission can not give a remedy different from the law.
Passing or failing a resolution asking to change the law was in its jurisdiction. I will have to side with Sam Hoff on that score. They held a hearing and got the public input. They acted accordingly. I just think that it was a miscalculation.
If the commission chairman wanted to advance understanding, the commission would have been better off holding a forum on being gay in the 21st century or urging the city to initiate a non-discrimination policy to build momentum for then HB 5. That would have been smarter than taking on an issue that just will explode and put back the cause of understanding that he was trying to advance. It was a strategic blunder.
Quite frankly, I don’t think anyone loses an election on a bill like HB 5 or SB 121 regardless of the vote they take. That is why they could have focused on it. It is a controversial issue but justifiable to most people regardless of what side you take. For every person that would vote against you there is one who will vote for you. The amendments are actually what will interest people.