My partner and I own an agency near Wilmington, and we have been hopeful to see this pass. After Prop 8 I feared we would be losing ground in the battle for equality and the rights that are guaranteed almost all other Americans. This is great news for all Delawarians.
Finally! Thank you Delaware for prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. It’s about time polygamy and bestiality are recognized as legitimate and legal.
Congrats, Ted!
I’m glad it passed also. Not for myself, but for the fact that religion/gov’t are SUPPOSED to be separate entities, and the Constitution has already been amended to provide equal protection based on sexual orientation. And the fact that I do believe same sex marriage should have the same rights I have in a heterosexual marriage.
So, not only has Delaware shown themselves to be a fair state, they will avoid (hopefully) the millions of dollars that other states are spending fighting a losing battle that promotes discrimination.
Now, if the close minded idiots (re- Scott) would realize that their OPINIONS are NOT LAW, and they have no right to impose them on anyone else, we could move on.
I am not against a legal union for same sex couples but you cannot call it marriage. Look it up in the dictionary. Its not a religious thing, its a language thing.
Unfortunately, the gov’t has left no other choice.
Civil Union does NOT give the same rights.
My suggestion would be to take the word ‘marriage’ OUT of any and all gov’t contracts, replace it with something along the lines of contractually joined? I don’t know, but the word marriage has been politically designated as a religious word, therefore having no place in a gov’t contract, IMHO. It invites bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination whenever religion gets involved.
Not to say that people can’t get married. If they want to be married in a church, fine. But the word ‘marriage’ should not appear on the tax returns or insurance forms. There should be another word that would clarify the relationship LEGALLY.
A ‘marriage’ in a courthouse would no longer be defined as a marriage. It would be in the eyes of the law, only. (which it is, now, but the word marriage IMPLIES religion)
As long as the gov’t uses the word marriage as a legal definition, there are no alternatives.
What is wrong with marriage? You can keep marriage as a legal term and add a new term for same sex union. The real problem is the gay community is not happy with being equal legally, they want to deminish marriage as a means to legitimize homosexual behavior which a large portion of the population will never do.
I don’t listen to Rush, so I don’t know about the gays wanting to diminish the word marriage.
I only know the real gay people that I talk to want the same rights I have. And I feel they should have them.
Again, the word marriage indicates religion, which brings out Scott and, apparently, you, with fangs bared.
Marriage can be a religious union but it is mostly a civil union by the state. That is why the you can get married at the justice of the peace with no religious ceremony. It is a union resulting in a couple called a HUSBAND AND WIFE. What would you call a same sex couple? I am not against a legal same sex union but it is not marriage. And Dawn, what is a “real gay person”? Is that opposed to a fake gay person. I have “real gay” relatives and they all say the same thing, they want to go farther than the legal status. They want everyone to accept it as a normal relationship. No fangs here Dawn. Just facts.
Well, ‘fake’ gay would be the ones who want to diminish the word ‘marriage’.
They want to be accepted. What does that have to do with diminishing a word? A legal word that the gov’t has dictated to have numerous legal implications.
Seems when the word ‘marriage’ is introduced, the religious fur stands straight up.
Who defined the word originally? The Church. What happened to separation of state and church? You can’t pray in school anymore, the state buildings cannot display any symbol of any religion anymore. So why is a religious word still being used to decide who has equal rights and who doesn’t?
If the word ‘marriage’ and all it’s religious implication is out of the equation, what would Rush and his followers have left to complain about? From what I’ve seen, the definition of the word ‘marriage’ is what this is all about. Take the word out of the equation.
I’m just tired of the Rush followers throwing the bible around with the definition of the bible. I wouldn’t give a rats a** if the Gov’t changed my status from married to some other legal term in the eyes of the law.
And, BTW- I don’t have sex in bathrooms- that’s George Michael and various members of our Congress.
The thing I have never understood is how people will hide behind the argument that marriage is one man and one woman as if it has always been that way, furthermore the argument that marriage is a religious rite. Neither are really true. marriage was more of a contractual relationship and eventually various cultures and the church co-opted the practice.
All of that is just window dressing; the real fact is that same sex couples want the right to form unions that have the same rights and recognition (in the eyes of the law) as every other relationship. This I support fully. I really don’t care what it is called…consider the state of marriage, it might be a good idea to call it something else anyway…
Lastly, to a previous poster that claimed this is part of an agenda to force acceptance on society, that would be a better thing than you could imagine…stability in relationships,..pride and the potential for normalcy in relations and perhaps a sharp decrease in the heartache caused because a people are limited in their ability to be recognized as full contributing members of society.
See? The word “marriage” brings out the Rush following, bible thumping, bigoted, name calling weirdos that the free-thinking, intelligent people of the world-aka the rest of us- try to avoid.
Believe it or not some people DO NOT need “Rush” to tell us how to think…..I thump my Bible as much as possible. Call me crazy but it’s called my principles and values and I don’t smear your to make mine look good to others. I don’t need anyone to validate my values. We can have a discussion and diagree. My gay friends and I have these discussions from time to time-that doesn’t mean that I have to change their thought processes and they won’t change mine. I and you need to support my fellow hummans as much as I can-It’s what I believe. You need to get a grip.
Reagan is resorting to Rush’s insulting name calling tactics and you’re telling ME to get a grip? And since Rush is the king of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and pain killers, she reminds me of him.
Yes, we can agree to disagree, and still be civil. But there are people out there, on this board as a matter of fact, that cannot have a discussion if your views aren’t the ones they DEMAND you have.
Now, now, don’t get your butch Fruit of Looms in an uproar. It’s ok that you and your lesbian lover are on board with sexual equality like bestiality, et al. On the topic of Rush, you really ARE carrying a torch for him. How cute.
I’m closed minded?!? Hey, I think this is great. My wives and “pets” can finally live without fear and thanks to The Delaware House those that are “sexually oriented” towards children shall no longer face discrimination either. Rock on you trail blazers.
Happy to share and glad you asked. I’ve been so disillusioned with the lack of equal rights in this County that I’m now a very passionate advocate for equal rights/equal treatment, just like you.
My partner and I own an agency near Wilmington, and we have been hopeful to see this pass. After Prop 8 I feared we would be losing ground in the battle for equality and the rights that are guaranteed almost all other Americans. This is great news for all Delawarians.
Finally! Thank you Delaware for prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. It’s about time polygamy and bestiality are recognized as legitimate and legal.
Congrats, Ted!
I’m glad it passed also. Not for myself, but for the fact that religion/gov’t are SUPPOSED to be separate entities, and the Constitution has already been amended to provide equal protection based on sexual orientation. And the fact that I do believe same sex marriage should have the same rights I have in a heterosexual marriage.
So, not only has Delaware shown themselves to be a fair state, they will avoid (hopefully) the millions of dollars that other states are spending fighting a losing battle that promotes discrimination.
Now, if the close minded idiots (re- Scott) would realize that their OPINIONS are NOT LAW, and they have no right to impose them on anyone else, we could move on.
I am not against a legal union for same sex couples but you cannot call it marriage. Look it up in the dictionary. Its not a religious thing, its a language thing.
Unfortunately, the gov’t has left no other choice.
Civil Union does NOT give the same rights.
My suggestion would be to take the word ‘marriage’ OUT of any and all gov’t contracts, replace it with something along the lines of contractually joined? I don’t know, but the word marriage has been politically designated as a religious word, therefore having no place in a gov’t contract, IMHO. It invites bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination whenever religion gets involved.
Not to say that people can’t get married. If they want to be married in a church, fine. But the word ‘marriage’ should not appear on the tax returns or insurance forms. There should be another word that would clarify the relationship LEGALLY.
A ‘marriage’ in a courthouse would no longer be defined as a marriage. It would be in the eyes of the law, only. (which it is, now, but the word marriage IMPLIES religion)
As long as the gov’t uses the word marriage as a legal definition, there are no alternatives.
What is wrong with marriage? You can keep marriage as a legal term and add a new term for same sex union. The real problem is the gay community is not happy with being equal legally, they want to deminish marriage as a means to legitimize homosexual behavior which a large portion of the population will never do.
I don’t listen to Rush, so I don’t know about the gays wanting to diminish the word marriage.
I only know the real gay people that I talk to want the same rights I have. And I feel they should have them.
Again, the word marriage indicates religion, which brings out Scott and, apparently, you, with fangs bared.
Marriage can be a religious union but it is mostly a civil union by the state. That is why the you can get married at the justice of the peace with no religious ceremony. It is a union resulting in a couple called a HUSBAND AND WIFE. What would you call a same sex couple? I am not against a legal same sex union but it is not marriage. And Dawn, what is a “real gay person”? Is that opposed to a fake gay person. I have “real gay” relatives and they all say the same thing, they want to go farther than the legal status. They want everyone to accept it as a normal relationship. No fangs here Dawn. Just facts.
Well, ‘fake’ gay would be the ones who want to diminish the word ‘marriage’.
They want to be accepted. What does that have to do with diminishing a word? A legal word that the gov’t has dictated to have numerous legal implications.
Seems when the word ‘marriage’ is introduced, the religious fur stands straight up.
Who defined the word originally? The Church. What happened to separation of state and church? You can’t pray in school anymore, the state buildings cannot display any symbol of any religion anymore. So why is a religious word still being used to decide who has equal rights and who doesn’t?
If the word ‘marriage’ and all it’s religious implication is out of the equation, what would Rush and his followers have left to complain about? From what I’ve seen, the definition of the word ‘marriage’ is what this is all about. Take the word out of the equation.
Actually a fake gay person is someone like you who gets married and then has gay sex at a thru way rest stop.
And one more thing, we can just change the definition of marriage in the eyes of the law, and you cant do anything about it.
Mark, who are you fighting with?
I’m all for gays getting equal rights, you moron.
I’m just tired of the Rush followers throwing the bible around with the definition of the bible. I wouldn’t give a rats a** if the Gov’t changed my status from married to some other legal term in the eyes of the law.
And, BTW- I don’t have sex in bathrooms- that’s George Michael and various members of our Congress.
Dawn, did it ever occur to you that I was responding to “married dude”
Freaking DUH…….
.. regarding the concept of the “traditional” marriage.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm
http://washingtonblade.com/2004/4-16/news/national/antrho.cfm
and a well thought out blog I ran across relating to the topic
http://www.robhamm.com/mylife/node/3
The thing I have never understood is how people will hide behind the argument that marriage is one man and one woman as if it has always been that way, furthermore the argument that marriage is a religious rite. Neither are really true. marriage was more of a contractual relationship and eventually various cultures and the church co-opted the practice.
All of that is just window dressing; the real fact is that same sex couples want the right to form unions that have the same rights and recognition (in the eyes of the law) as every other relationship. This I support fully. I really don’t care what it is called…consider the state of marriage, it might be a good idea to call it something else anyway…
Lastly, to a previous poster that claimed this is part of an agenda to force acceptance on society, that would be a better thing than you could imagine…stability in relationships,..pride and the potential for normalcy in relations and perhaps a sharp decrease in the heartache caused because a people are limited in their ability to be recognized as full contributing members of society.
All marriage should be banned. The state should take care of the children exclusively, planned or unplanned.
See? The word “marriage” brings out the Rush following, bible thumping, bigoted, name calling weirdos that the free-thinking, intelligent people of the world-aka the rest of us- try to avoid.
Dawn-
Believe it or not some people DO NOT need “Rush” to tell us how to think…..I thump my Bible as much as possible. Call me crazy but it’s called my principles and values and I don’t smear your to make mine look good to others. I don’t need anyone to validate my values. We can have a discussion and diagree. My gay friends and I have these discussions from time to time-that doesn’t mean that I have to change their thought processes and they won’t change mine. I and you need to support my fellow hummans as much as I can-It’s what I believe. You need to get a grip.
Reagan is resorting to Rush’s insulting name calling tactics and you’re telling ME to get a grip? And since Rush is the king of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and pain killers, she reminds me of him.
Yes, we can agree to disagree, and still be civil. But there are people out there, on this board as a matter of fact, that cannot have a discussion if your views aren’t the ones they DEMAND you have.
But all she’s doing is proving my point.
Dawn,
Now, now, don’t get your butch Fruit of Looms in an uproar. It’s ok that you and your lesbian lover are on board with sexual equality like bestiality, et al. On the topic of Rush, you really ARE carrying a torch for him. How cute.
I’m closed minded?!? Hey, I think this is great. My wives and “pets” can finally live without fear and thanks to The Delaware House those that are “sexually oriented” towards children shall no longer face discrimination either. Rock on you trail blazers.
What happened Scott, c’mon you can tell us…let it out…
Happy to share and glad you asked. I’ve been so disillusioned with the lack of equal rights in this County that I’m now a very passionate advocate for equal rights/equal treatment, just like you.
We’re on the same team.
Excellent!