Delaware Republicans stop treating gays as second class citizens re: HB#75

House Bill # 75

AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR SAME-GENDER CIVIL MARRIAGE AND TO CONVERT EXISTING CIVIL UNIONS TO CIVIL MARRIAGES.

OK before I get started, I am not gay! This issue is about human rights and pursuit of happiness.

Those opposing HB#75 are infringing on individuals rights to be happy and more importantly be open about who they are! God will judge us all on our final journey. It is not your job to play God or be judge and jury condemning what “God” has created!   

If we want to question morals perhaps we can start with the morals of politicians whom many are self-serving, We have far far greater problems in this state and country to worry about who marries who. 

The state allows civil unions for same gender “citizens” and there is no harm to society by converting these civil unions to civil marriages.

Dear Delaware hardheaded Republican and democratic legislators opposing HB# 75, let it go! Let our gay brothers and sisters enjoy their lives like all men and women! We have much more serious work to do rebuilding our economy in-which gays have always been willing to be a productive part of that process. Search your soul and find what God gave all of us! Compassion. You don’t hesitate to pass laws protecting animals but continue a narrow-minded debate on passing this that bring humans to an equal level of dignity and rights to those “God” created!

Perhaps the Delaware Republican Party has become outcast because they are out of touch with the people! What do you say to gay brothers and sister within the Delaware Republican party? Their money and tireless campaign efforts aren’t rejected! Grow-up Delaware Republican Party! It’s 2013.  

20 responses to “Delaware Republicans stop treating gays as second class citizens re: HB#75

  1. I was wondering. Why does everyone always start out with “I’m not gay” on these pro equal rights posts? They then go on to say it doesn’t make a difference as to what one’s gender preference is….. but their opening statement always implies the exact opposite?….

    Sorry to unwind here, but I’ve see that statement 5 separate times today, and just thought I’d comment here on familiar territory…

    Just why is there that need to call it out?

    Like

  2. kilroysdelaware

    “Why does everyone always start out with “I’m not gay” because I don’t want older men like you hitting on me 🙂 Actually because it’s a short message as I am not gay but I care about gay rights It’s important for gays to know non gays are in their corner.

    Like

  3. kavips, in reply to you seeing that several times today..I wonder if it’s because some people might think they need to make sure their readers understand that their reason for believing in something isn’t because it effects them directly.

    Like

  4. Dennis Thornton

    Please move back to New Jersey. Why did you move here? Your against everything in our state. Please I beg you to move back to New Jersey.

    Like

  5. Dennis Thornton

    Please move back to New Jersey “Kilroy”

    Like

  6. Dennis Thornton

    Jersey now, I’ll help you pack.

    Like

  7. Not usually something I comment on but when did marriage become a right? Why is it not acceptable to have marriage between 1 man & 1 woman and civil union between people of the same gender? Civil unions can provide the same privileges to partners as spouses regarding benefits, emergency medical decisions, etc. without the same term.
    I’m sure the homophobe ( a hate-filled term in itself) term will come flying out from the liberals who only accept views with which they agree. There is no hatred involved in this – just a simple respect for the historical significance to the term marriage.
    Kilroy, your own post passes judgement on those with whom you disagree. Just a bit hypocritical as you attack their judgement on gay marriage, don’t you think?

    Like

    • Dennis Thornton

      Please “Kilroy” move back to New Jersey. You hate it here in Delaware

      Like

    • It’s a natural right, Guest. Just like choice.

      Like

    • Marriage isn’t the right, Guest, it’s the rights that come with marriage that’s the point. And civil unions do not provide the same benefits. When heterosexuals marry they immediately receive a whole lot of rights, from the state and federal government, with their marriage certificate. That’s were the debate hinges.

      States passing civil unions is a first step, but same sex couples still wouldn’t be recognized in states that don’t have civil unions. Imagine if you were transferred by your company and the state you moved to didn’t recognize your marriage – no marital social security benefits for you, gotta file separate tax returns, you are no longer considered the next of kin, and, why no, your spouse isn’t eligible for your pension, health benefits, etc.. Imagine if you vacationed, or went to visit family, in a state that didn’t recognize your spouse and there was an accident and you weren’t able to make medical decisions for your spouse, or even to see them.

      Now… we can take the government out of the marriage business altogether, and then everyone can get married in their church, park, etc and then everyone can hire a lawyer and create a contract that covers all the benefits not listed on today’s marriage certificates, but exist.

      As far as “historical marriage”… you probably need to read up on the history of marriage – it isn’t what you’re claiming it is. Historically, marriage looks very different today. The idea of marrying for love is an extremely new concept in the history of marriage. Historically, women didn’t have a say in who they married – they went from being the “property” of their fathers to the “property” of their husbands. Even men not born of privilege needed the permission of their lord to marry. Historically, you’ll also find polygamy in the definition of marriage. Hey, you wanted to talk about the history of marriage! Historically, you’ll find the arguments against gay marriage the same as those used for interracial marriage.

      So… you may want to drop your “respect for the historical significance to the term marriage” argument, because history doesn’t back up your claim.

      Like

    • “Historically, you’ll also find polygamy in the definition of marriage.”

      So when they pass the redefinition of “marriage”, because it is on the Democrat agenda, (not the majority’s agenda) based on “consenting adults” be prepared for the mandatory acceptance of all variations of what consenting adults want to define as marriage. Polygamy included because if the only criteria is that it is a loving relationship between consenting adults then there is no position you can have against multiple partners, sharing or swapping or any other variation. The slippery slope is that marriage predates government and here we have government redefining what was a societal binding agent. Now the relativists want to say let everyone be equal in the eyes of marriage. Well, if everyone is equal then everyone as long as they are consenting adults should be able to enter into marriage in any configuration you can think of. Between two people simply will not be acceptable as a limitation. The education system is already moving to create programs to educate your children into all manner of “acceptable” relationships. Is that really what every parent wants their children to be exposed to? Do you really want every manner of deviation (i.e. transgender, transvestite, crossdressing, etc) to be part of the standard fair? Not that it doesn’t exist but that it is a perfectly acceptable and a viable lifestyle your children (5-14 year old) should accept and/ or aspire to.

      Most normal people are not trying to prevent people’s rights to be in a relationship with whom they want but the fact is it will not end there and the educational system will be forced to teach some very difficult subjects that are not appropriate for children. That is the core problem with trying to argue it is just for adult rights. The acceptance of gay marriage also means societal acceptance of many other topics that parents should have a right to control and won’t. Their children will be forced to accept some things that have sincere moral implications. Rewrite laws regarding civil unions to grant the “rights” that are so eagerly being saught but redefining marriage for the purposes of getting supposed denied rights is backward. This boils down to a desire to forcing societal acceptance and it is not the same thing as interracial marriage. It is far different.

      The narrow minded approach is to think this will end at just two consenting adults.

      Like

    • Pandora,
      Please re-read my post. I stated that civil unions can guarantee those same privileges as marriages. If they don’t, the laws can and should change to allow for that.
      At no point did I use the term love when mentioning the historical term of marriage. I am well aware that there were and are arranged marriages. However,even in such cases marriage has still been between male and female.
      While some societies have allowed polygamous marriages, the U.S. has followed traditional western definitions of marriage. Even polygamous marriages had the marriage between those of different genders. The second and third spouses (and beyond) do not marry each other.
      In each case marriage has been between opposite genders, not the same.
      Kilroy, the freedom to marry is not denied to anyone as long as they can find a spouse of the opposite gender. If that doesn’t make them happy, a civil union may work. They are not the same and therefore do require the same terminology.
      Ryder is absolutely correct. If marriage is redefined as a right, how is it not a right for any number of consenting adults to marry? Tinker v Des Moines guaranteed that freedom of speech doesn’t leave students at the schoolhouse gate. How does this newly defined “right” apply to those under 18?
      Having two different terms eliminates any potential problems involved in this proposed redefinition while allowing people to be happy.

      Like

  8. barbara J. Finnan

    Dennis Darling, get a grip, get a life, and maybe you should try Jersey. Because someone is capable of a different opinion from yours shouldn’t mean they have to move. Try to calm down and recognize that it’s because Kilroy doesn’t hate Delaware that he tries so hard to change it for the better – despite our mostly lame politicians and business honchos. And, yes, I also recognize that your definition of “better” and mine are radically different.

    Like

  9. kilroysdelaware

    “Kilroy, your own post passes judgement on those with whom you disagree. Just a bit hypocritical as you attack their judgement on gay marriage, don’t you think?”

    Welcome to America and don’t you think by you passing judgement on me for passing judgement on others makes you hypocritical.

    ” just a simple respect for the historical significance to the term marriage”

    WTF! What about the historical term called “freedom”? Much of the argument is rooted in one’s own religion beliefs, So we’re to separate church and state when it comes to sending out kids to school but allowed to use one’s church doctrines as a legislator to infringe on the pursuit of happiest? And it seems like the Delaware Republican representatives think they are closer to God. Must be because the hold greater wealth and are reminded as they count their money as see “In God we Trust” pass before their eyes millions of times.

    He Dennis, what are you smoking back to New Jersey? And please cut your grass it’s a mess! .

    Like

    • Dennis Thornton

      Our friend “Kilroy” is a recent transplant from New Jersey plain and simple. I don’t find it a good thing for someone who came to our state because of all our benifits beat our benifits down daily.

      Like

    • Dennis, you are a troll. Even worse, you are a troll that has no idea what he’s talking about. Kilroy is NOT a “recent transplant from New Jersey”. Where are you getting this stuff?

      Like

    • kilroysdelaware

      Dennis you are out of your fucking mind LOL 🙂 The only time I lived in NJ was when the Crescendo Lounge was open and I’d come home to Delaware every night! Me and Pandora husband worked the dance floor but we weren’t gay ! LOL 🙂

      Like

    • It’s about time somebody exposed this Kilroy guy! 🙂

      Like

  10. Dennis Thornton

    Yep. We live in a state with more benifits than any other. Keep believing this garbage from someone afraid to use their own name. He’s just another transplant who came here for cheaper taxes and better schools but only wishes to complain.

    Like