Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-sex unions legalized in Delaware
bostonherald.com ^ | 05/12/2011 | Peter Mucha

Posted on 05/12/2011 10:05:22 AM PDT by massmike

Delaware has joined New Jersey in granting marriage-like rights to same-sex couples joined by civil unions.

The law, which will take effect next Jan. 1, stops short of conferring full marriage rights, as has been done by five states and Washington, D.C.

Gov. Jack Markell signed the legislation on Wednesday at Wilmington’s Queen Theater, as hundreds of supporters toasted the occasion with champagne.

(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Delaware
KEYWORDS: civilunions; fdrq; homosexualagenda; jackmarkell; marriage

1 posted on 05/12/2011 10:05:30 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: massmike
Gov. Jack Markell signed the legislation on Wednesday at Wilmington’s Queen Theater

How fitting!

2 posted on 05/12/2011 10:06:33 AM PDT by massmike (DADT repeal: the Boy Scouts now have tougher membership requirements than the Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

“stops short of conferring full marriage rights”

So it’s not marriage. Good.


3 posted on 05/12/2011 10:12:24 AM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

In one sense, it’s good to have a clear demarcation between the degenerate fag states and real America, in case Obama gets re-elected and the option of secession becomes an increasingly appealing course of action.


4 posted on 05/12/2011 10:17:19 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

It’s about time to remember California, civil unions were considered “not enough” there. I hope, as a Delaware resident, this does not repeat, but it probably will given enough time. Politics these days isn’t too clear cut as to what policy pacifies for good. Most of what I care about is whether or not religions and non-profit organizations are treated separately from the governmental (i.e. don’t have to treat as marriage what the government does). That is a tough debate that can’t be completely ruled out in coming months, but hopefully we can keep up the honest, sincere, effort.


5 posted on 05/12/2011 10:37:16 AM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Secession doesn’t sound so appealing when the fact comes along that it does not solve the base problem. I have spoken about the same for the few dissappointed political figures who suggested breaking up Arizona to have separate red and blue states in response to Arizona SB 1070, it creates plenty of problems for what you supposedly solve. In addition, sexuality can be concealed, if any secession did occur, we would find ourselves with any “closet homosexuals” that were already there coming in and campaigning for their “rights” just as they did before. There is no alternative to living where you live, believing what you believe, enduring, and defending faith as needs be.

In addition, I would advise against suggesting secession on FR, most of us understand the urge, but the drawbacks of secession (division, smaller weaker forces to defend or believe in something, etc.), outweigh any perceived benefits.


6 posted on 05/12/2011 10:43:22 AM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chode

.


7 posted on 05/12/2011 11:32:17 AM PDT by Morgana (I speak no more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66
In one sense, it’s good to have a clear demarcation between the degenerate fag states and real America, in case Obama gets re-elected and the option of secession becomes an increasingly appealing course of action.

Not much point in getting deeply invested in opposition to gay marriage".

Demographics are destiny on this one - this year as predicted we crossed the line between minority and majority support for such unions on a national basis, and you can predict within a reasonable margin of error when such legislation will be passing in various state.

The most recent estimate I've seen posits that Mississippi will be last holdout, legalizing such unions sometime between 2032 and 2035.

Likely well before that most if not all states will have some form of some form of civil union or full marital status because not having such is going to become an increasing competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses.

For example my wife works for an F-100 multinational where the majority of gays and lesbians are "out" and there is a strong anti-discrimination policy on the basis of sexual orientation, and there is just no chance that this company is going to be establishing major new facilities in states that don't recognize some form of marital rights for such employees - many of whom are highly placed in the company.

Also, we are rapidly going to get into problems aligning benefits, rights and responsibilities between various states, it's going to be a real mess for example when one state refuses hospital visitation rights to a "spouse" entitled to them in their state of residence - it's bad publicity, bad press, and it's rapidly going to be seen as a bad idea.

Of course, you can talk secession - the problem is that within 10 or 15 years rural areas rural would have to start seceding from urban areas *within* most (likely, all) Red States... as by that time there will be majority voter support for some form of marital status and most of them.

And in the meantime - to the extent that this is a touchstone of conservative policy - it means that you are alienating large numbers of younger voters who might otherwise be a natural conservative constituency.

Nope, time to let this one go.

8 posted on 05/12/2011 12:51:29 PM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor; Morpheus2009
The degree of "rights" conferred by "civil unions" is on a broad spectrum, from very basic hospital visitation and inheritance rights to everything granted by marriage - depending upon the state. Granting civil unions is almost every bit as destructive as same-sex "marriage" because it represents the quantum leap of governmental recognition and affirmation of this perversion where there was none before. It is now only a matter of time, probably a short time, before the barbarians push with the leverage they now have and demand full "marriage." No state with civil unions will be able to defend marriage for very long.
9 posted on 05/12/2011 2:11:36 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

It looks like someone has been drinking the koolaid by the gallon.


10 posted on 05/12/2011 2:17:03 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Might be a good time to get government out of the marriage racket altogether.


11 posted on 05/12/2011 2:41:31 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Might be a good time to get government out of the marriage racket altogether.

Please elaborate.

12 posted on 05/12/2011 3:30:08 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

My main point about this is establishing a genuine separation between church and state. Although I have a hard time understanding how some things are unique to marriage. For instance, I have joint-healthcare benefits with my parents. I signed it out, because frankly, Ms. Wonderful has not come around for me to marry just yet, that’s fine. I would also like to wonder how hospital visits are denied when all I had to do was sign in to visit my friend, also a guy, as well in the hospital. This person is not any romantic interest or spouse of mine, not by a long shot. I would also mention that the hospitals in Delaware let me drop by and visit my then-girlfriend who I was not married to either at that time. I did have to sign in and out to let them know I was there at that time, but they didn’t vastly care about whether or not I was the spouse of either of these people. I can write a will out to pretty much anyone who can agree to it, even though I am unmarried as of yet as well. SO that is the point, inheritance, healthcare, and hospital visits I can do with someone to whom I am not married, I just have a real problem understanding what is going on here? As far as businesses go, let them pass what policies they may, let other nonprofit or “religious” groups do as they may, because in the end, it’s to their benefit or loss.

I will say that I only agree on the secession part, primarily because secession does not solve anything, plus I also doubt any state is without its’ major cities, which have their own significant voting population.


13 posted on 05/12/2011 3:45:40 PM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Get government out of the marriage racket altogether.”

What is the difficult to understand part?


14 posted on 05/12/2011 4:13:22 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

All the reasons put forward by homosexual activists to prove why they should be allowed to “marry” someone of the same sex are bogus red herrings. As you indicated, they already have many of these “rights” available to them, just as anyone else does. What they want is official affirmation of their sexual practices, which “marriage” would give them in spades. This is why the fight is critical not only to deny the redefinition of marriage to include that which is not, but also civil unions and other official government-recognized forms of domestic partnership.


15 posted on 05/12/2011 4:14:01 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
What is the difficult to understand part?

I think I know what your getting at, but to be fair to you and avoid assuptions, I'd like to give you a chance to explain "government getting out of the marriage business." Don't you even know what it is that you're proposing?

16 posted on 05/12/2011 4:16:48 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Yes I am proposing that the only governing bodies over marriages be the houses of worship in which they are performed. One of the things that led many away from their church being their central focus in life was the government in large part taking over marriage; Wedding licenses et al....you get government out of marriage and it solves a few problems right away; 1. If you want to be “married” you better be on good terms with a religious official somewhere. 2. Married couples might once again place their God at the center of their marriage, rather than government. 3. If government were completely out of the marriage racket, who exactly would the lavender mafia be suing for the “right” to marry?


17 posted on 05/12/2011 4:25:22 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Who will government recognize as “married,” as it must?


18 posted on 05/12/2011 4:47:05 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The government recognizes NO ONE as married or unmarried. It’s none of their business. You know I find it ironic for conservatives that want government out of every other aspect of our lives, this is the ONE (and the most personal one) that my fellow conservatives want the most government influence. It’s disturbing.


19 posted on 05/12/2011 4:55:06 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

I don’t think you’re thinking through the implications of no one being married in the government’s eyes. What about children of a widow who marries a new husband? How does he get to adopt her children if he is as good as a stranger to her? What ties people together in a society if there are no recognized ties? Who enforces contracts?


20 posted on 05/12/2011 5:21:13 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“What about children of a widow who marries a new husband? How does he get to adopt her children if he is as good as a stranger to her?”

How is he a stranger to her? Because the government says so?

“What ties people together in a society if there are no recognized ties? Who enforces contracts?”

Who is your highest authority, the Government or your God? My thoughts on the issue have evolved over time and now I have to say that I agree with a lot of what Alan Dershowitz wrote in this piece;

http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html

He goes more into detail than I do, and he even leaves the door open for those who are straight, religious or conservative but for some reason feel the need to have the state give them permission to marry.


21 posted on 05/12/2011 5:40:23 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

If I may, I would also add a number of binding contracts by which one can assign ownership or responsibility, completely regardless of marital status.

1) Advanced Healthcare Directive
2) Will and Testament
3) Birth Certificate (Who is the parent as recorded on that)


22 posted on 05/12/2011 5:53:47 PM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

If I may, I would also add a number of binding contracts by which one can assign ownership or responsibility, completely regardless of marital status.

1) Advanced Healthcare Directive
2) Will and Testament
3) Birth Certificate (Who is the parent as recorded on that)

Although I do feel that general contracts are a good idea for various relationships.


23 posted on 05/12/2011 5:55:31 PM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Again. Who enforces contracts?


24 posted on 05/12/2011 6:01:37 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Legal contracts would be enforced by the State, but in the situation which I describe (Big Daddy Government out of marriage) marriage would not necessarily BE a legal contract. You COULD have one if you felt the need to have your state grant you permission to marry, but marriage is largely a sacrament as is baptism.....I don’t see the state getting involved in baptism.


25 posted on 05/12/2011 6:04:48 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

So, in a court of law, can the state now compel you to testify against your spouse?


26 posted on 05/12/2011 6:07:30 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“So, in a court of law, can the state now compel you to testify against your spouse?”

Depends. Did you get the states permission to wed? Or did you really live dangerously, leave big brother out of it and have an ecumenical ceremony that actually mean’t something to you and your spouse?


27 posted on 05/12/2011 6:10:11 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Depends. Did you get the states permission to wed? Or did you really live dangerously, leave big brother out of it and have an ecumenical ceremony that actually mean’t something to you and your spouse?

That's a non-answer. Again, slower: can ... the ... state ... compel ... court ... testimony ... against ... a ... spouse?

28 posted on 05/12/2011 6:12:59 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
...marriage would not necessarily BE a legal contract...

So, when a husband just wants to abandon his non-working "wife" and family, he is perfectly free to legally to do so with no obligations?

29 posted on 05/12/2011 6:20:24 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Good grief. I am REALLY trying not to insult you. I’ve watched you on FR for a while and agree with most of what you have to say so I am going to try even harder (maybe having a stroke in the process) to do my best to not devolve this into an insult contest. Here goes nothing;

From the link that I sent you that you clearly have not followed; “The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, ANY couple could register for CIVIL UNION, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.”

IOW, if you and your spouse went to big brother in order to get the government recognized “civil union” then no, your spouse could NOT be forced to testify against you in a court of law.

Basically right now we have a system that says that you can get married in a courthouse w/o church involvement, but you just try finding a cleric that will marry you w/o state permission. I want to see that situation done away with.


30 posted on 05/12/2011 6:21:33 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

We have people in this nation shacking up and making babies right and left. When mommy and daddy break up, does the government make the non-custodial spouse pay support or not?

State sanctioned marriage is not required for the state to protect the children of these unions.


31 posted on 05/12/2011 6:23:41 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

“...this is the ONE (and the most personal one) that my fellow conservatives want the most government influence. It’s disturbing.”

I agree. It isn’t a very popular opinion in these parts.

Relying on the state to define and protect marriage, at least in modern times has subverted the role of faith, and has led many to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” simply because the intitution is now viewed by many to be just another gov’t contract that can be broken and resumed as long as the state gives its OK.

But the bottom line is that it isn’t going to change, it provides the state too much power over the culture. Statists and homosexualists wouldn’t be able to punish folks if they disagreed with their ever evolving definition of marriage, which is coming soon, if not already here in some areas, at least in my opinion.

The good news is that some faiths are never going to accept it, no matter what the punishment, and that’s all that really matters.

Freegards


32 posted on 05/12/2011 6:42:25 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Thank you, you made the point better than I could.


33 posted on 05/12/2011 6:46:29 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Under this proposal, ANY couple could register for CIVIL UNION, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Whew! Finally!!! I suspected that you were getting at this, but for some reason didn't want to express it as, "government-recognized civil union for all, but no recognized marriage."

Only now you have to explain why it is not okay for the government to be in the "marriage business" but is perfectly alright, for some reason, to be in the "civil union business."

34 posted on 05/12/2011 7:00:46 PM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Even in CA 65% of parents recently said they did not want "gay is good" instruction in public schools. Surrendering to same sex "marriage" is a death knell for human civilization. Demographics are not destiny. More and more young people are becoming pro-life - abortion is becoming less and less accepted as normal, homosexuality is the next one to fall. Anyone pushing same sex "marriage" has moral blinders on. And historical blinders, as well. Homosexuality is a mental illness, huge character flaw, and same sex acts are unnatural, unhealthy and immoral. Homosexuals have much higher rates of child molestation, alcoholism, drug use, violent crime, "partner" abuse and all manner of STD illnesses. Pretending it is just a normal variant of human behavior is nothing but wilfull propaganda.

35 posted on 05/12/2011 7:11:52 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Only now you have to explain why it is not okay for the government to be in the “marriage business” but is perfectly alright, for some reason, to be in the “civil union business.”

Easy, marriage is a religious sacrament, civil unions are secular.


36 posted on 05/12/2011 7:15:17 PM PDT by Grunthor (The nomination of Herman Cain takes more than half the ammo away from the race hustlers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

if we got the message out about the homosexual agenda, if we showed them on their sick parades with a caption saying is this your sex life private? or showed how their agenda is being pushed into the schools then it would wake more of these idiots up who say “I know one and they are nice” what utter crap just because one knows one or they are used as a fashion accessory in places like NY City does not mean you have to be blind or ignorant.

keep up the good work and thank you for the pings


37 posted on 05/12/2011 8:17:16 PM PDT by manc (Hannity is a fraud , he admitted he's socially liberal on his show, he's took us for suckers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: massmike

ONce again, the white trash crowd scores another point.


38 posted on 05/13/2011 6:42:43 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

No, gay marriage is the line in the sand for me. The moment it is forced onto the entirity of the country is the moment the country becomes unsalvageable, and no longer worth preserving. I’d happily see the country break apart and burn in flames first.


39 posted on 05/13/2011 7:34:33 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

You seem to think homosexuals are something that invade from the outside. Like, we close our borders, and they can’t come in. Sorry, FRiend, that’s not how it works. Homosexuals are our brothers, sons, daughters, and friends. We can try to reach them, try to turn them from sin, but they will never be apart from us.


40 posted on 05/13/2011 6:53:00 PM PDT by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

The good news is that some faiths are never going to accept it, no matter what the punishment, and that’s all that really matters.”

Agreed. I would also add that this fact is the reason why religion will go on, because there is no other gauge besides these “punishments” that really shows how sincerely one believes in what they do.


41 posted on 05/14/2011 11:24:06 AM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ivyleaguebrat

I was addressing secession, loud and clear, which is pretty much synonymous with treason.

At least you acknowledged that it seems that way, well, when addressing how some bad decision such as secession will not solve a problem, I would say certain replies are justified. Homosexuals may seem like invaders based on what I said, but facts are facts, even if the treasonous act of secession occurred, there would still be homosexuals in seceded areas which would still campaign for their rights, therefore secession would do nothing to address the issue, but would rather be a short-term attempt at delaying it. Not only that, but it would be pointless because the government and armed forces would never simply let a state, or sections of a state simply walk away. I do not regret the harsh tone when addressing the attrocity of treason. While I do believe in rights and limited government, I would never condone treason, or the weakening of our nation by secession, or splitting up of the states, it is wrong, regardless of the political persuasion of who suggests it. While I do understand the disappointment over the immaturity of many of our politicians, and am personally disappointed myself, I would never suggest or consider treason (a.k.a. secession or splintering of the states) to be a good idea. Is that clear?

Finally, I do understand, and do care about those who practice homosexuality, I fear for many of them, and the serious harm they can do to themselves for their actions, but please, do not make any mistake about the fact that I do not advocate or condone treason in the slightest.


42 posted on 05/14/2011 11:32:15 AM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson