April 20, 2013 at 10:21 am EDT | by Michael K. Lavers
Delaware House to vote on same-sex marriage bill

Melanie George Smith, Equality Delaware, Delaware, gay news, Washington Blade, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, HB 75, marriage equality

Delaware state Rep. Melanie George Smith (D-Bear) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Delaware House of Representatives on Tuesday is expected to vote on a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the state.

Lawmakers are scheduled to consider the measure less than a week after the House Administrative Committee voted 4-1 to send House Bill 75 to the full chamber.

The proposal has 23 co-sponsors — including state Rep. Mike Ramone (R-Middle Run Valley) who spoke exclusively with the Washington Blade on April 17 before the House Administrative Committee approved it.

State Rep. Melanie George Smith (D-Bear,) who introduced HB 75 on April 11, remains hopeful the bill will pass.

“I’m confident that we have a majority of Delaware representatives — so over 21 out of the 41 — that will do the right thing and vote to support equality in Delaware,” she said.

Michael K. Lavers is the international news editor of the Washington Blade. Follow Michael

  • Jean, the state does not require married people to be good parents. When you apply for a marriage, there is no official who comes to examine whether or not you should have children. Even child molesters are allowed to get married in all 50 states.

  • There are plenty of people (heterosexuals) that get married and don’t get married. Generally you won’t see to many children coming out of couples who are both over 55 that get married. Gay and Lesbians can currently adopt. Generally Same gender couple PLAN their children unlike their counterparts and adopt harder to place children. And trust me, people will continue to have unplanned & unwanted children who can easily be adopted by stable, financially able and loving homes from married same-gender couples. I wasn’t aware that having children was a pre-requisite to being able to get married.

  • If marriage is founded upon “Natural Law”, there should be no laws permitting divorce, which is the largest cause of one parent households and a true destroyer of society. Methinks your protest is misdirected.

  • Jean-Jacques,

    Your post is too easy to refute, but since I’m bored at work, I’ll have a go at it.

    “Same-sex marriage is perfectly contrary to the principle of marriage, having more resemblance to divorce and adultery, same-sex marriage purposely separates a child from at least one biological parent, thereby creating broken homes, not as a matter of extraordinary circumstances, but as routine.”

    Contrary to which principles of marriage? What marriage contract is solely based on procreation? If that is the case, marriage must be dissolved when one party is unable to reproduce.

    Divorce: Marriage of any sort is the exact opposite. Perhaps your mastery of English is a little weak here. Why don’t we instead make divorce illegal? Are you willing to sign up for this?

    Adultery: It is a flaw of all humans. Do you limit adultery to physical acts or thoughts? The bible says the latter. Therefore, every human is/has been guilty of adultery.

    Separates a child from at least one biological parent: Yes? What about insemination? What about adoption? In case you forget, many parents abandon their children. We are more than happy to raise them in happy, financially stable, homes.

    Natural law: Again, see insemination. Lesbian couples have no issue with creating a child. Therefore, the child gets to know at least one biological parent (again a better prospect than many abandoned children in orphanages have).

    “Man becomes the most savage and ferocious of all animals”: Yes. Every night, my fiancé and I go raping and pillaging the local villages. Give us a break. Go to a gay club. Then go to a straight bar. I will bet my next pay check that you’ll see a fight break out at the straight bar first and more frequently.

    “Children are not pets one purchases from rescue shelters(adoption clinics) and puppy mills(insemination and surrogacy).” : So what do you propose. Let them live there forever? The kids are there because heterosexual couples will not adopt them. Simple. They abandoned them in the first place.

    “Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.”: Support this! What evidence do you have? Studies in Great Britain have shown a much lower divorce rate for gay men compared to straight couples. What is your evidence to the contrary? What your local bishop said? Right. Let’s save Catholic moral authority for another day.

    “In fine, same-sex marriage surmounts to nothing more than an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”. Just be honest here. The only thing you are upset about is that the church has lost its ability to control people. Maybe you should instead focus on the Church’s pedophilia, protection of pedophiles, corruption, and extravagance.

  • Thank you Sean, you saved me a lot of work. Now my husband and I have time to put a little extra “umph” into causing those natural disasters. :-)

  • to Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui

    Of course, having two people of the same sex enter into the same contract that heterosexual couples do, with the same rights and obligations, has no resemblance whatever to annuling such a contract, or breaking it by being unfaithful. The assertion is asurd on its face.

    Many children do not have a mother or a father with them much of their lives. Parents abandon children or they die. So I’m not impressed with the “natural right” claim which nature seems not to be honoring.

    But to the more elementary question, what does SSM have to do with children? I presume you’re aware that same-sex couples cannot procreate. I suspect vast majority of same-sex couples will not have childred. So when there are children raise by same-sex couples, where are these allegedly victimized kids coming from? I suppose one of three places: 1) divorce from a prior opposite sex marriage, which suggests the kids will know their parents as well as any children of divorced parents; 2) adoption, which presupposes that the chilrden, having been surrendered by their biological mother and perhaps father, would never know their parents, or 3) surrogacy or in vitro, which means without one of these parents, these children would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN, and they were not destined to live in a mother/father household. For the same reason I reject NOM’s argument on children and SSM, I reject yours. There is no significant link between allowing two men or two women to get married and chlidren not growing up with their parents.

    Furthermore, your description of marriage is at odds with marriage as it actually exists in the United States. This is not a “preposterious or pretentious claim.” Its a fact about marriage that destroys the entire premise of your argument. We do not require people to be able to have children, to have them or to adopt them to get or remain married. (True, when children are present, marriage improves the chance that they will have legal support because both parents are legally obligated to provide for them.) So marriage must be about something else, and it is pretty obvious given its legal consequences, that marraige is about the commitment between the spouses. Nor do we worry that allowing people who can’t have children to marry will undermine marriage for those who want to have them and do. If we did, Justice Scalia’s joke on the bench in the recent Prop 8 case would have fallen flat because we would test for fertility and not think doing so a violation of privacy.

    As to your quote from Kant, it seems unhelpful because there is zero reason to suppose that anyone will become a gay person because we allow same-sex marraige. Sexuality is innate, Jean, and if you’re an adult you should know that. It’s not caused by a statute of a legislature. The assumption that anyone will “go gay” (let alone a large enough number of people to “destroy society”) is an empty claim thrown around by the desperate, trying to avoid something that, at the end of the day, they simply dislike on emotional grounds.

  • Jean-Jaques… tsk tsk tsk.
    “Same-sex marriage is perfectly contrary to the principle of marriage,”

    Maybe to you, but then I was taught TO MARRY FOR LOVE. Not for money, or for becoming a baby factory pushing out one a year.

    “having more resemblance to divorce and adultery,”

    How? I ask you how. If I am prefectly capable of remaining loyal to a same sex partner how it that a divorce, or even adultery. Also this quote is for you:
    “A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed”- Deuteronomy- 22: 13-21
    So this means if you had sex in highschool or was molested or raped before marriage you deserve to die. I quite frankly don’t know why we don’t enforce this.-sarcasm

    “same-sex marriage purposely separates a child from at least one biological parent,”

    Because forcing a child to be with their dad that beats them is the BEST thing we should do! Or forcing them on their mothers that only use them to get back at said dad! Or just use the child for the money it brings in for welfare! I mean its not like gay couples actually care about children and want them to live in a stable and loved environment. Rather then growing up in a place where they will become serial killers.
    Or we should force those twelve year old children whom were molested to LIVE WITH THEIR ABUSERS with those children they have from said encounters. DO you seriously even know what is spewing forth from your fingers?

    “thereby creating broken homes, not as a matter of extraordinary circumstances, but as routine.”

    yes because same sex marriages NEVER break up.

    “Same-sex marriage proponents callously ignore a child’s Natural Right to know,”

    Actually they don’t. I’ve seen many posts on facebook about adopted children that want to know where they came from, and many grow up knowing their are adopted but chose to wait until they can, in order to find their birth parents. Whom more often then not, don’t want anything to deal with their child. So tell me, should parents that don’t give a single iota about their child raise said child? Or should the child be raised in a family where they are loved and taught to love others?

    “and be raised by, both biological parents,”

    yes because we should allow child molesters to raise their children.

    “and make the most preposterous and pretentious claim that marriage was instituted by civil society primarily for the benefit of any two loving adults.”

    Or maybe, it is the claim that children should be loved and raised by two loving adults so that they don’t grow up lonely, and unloved to the point they commit suicide because same sex couples don’t want them because they are not ‘pretty’ enough for them. Or have behavioral problems, or have several other problems. I mean we should just let those kids grow up sad and alone because their parents didn’t want them. Or we should force those parents to raise a child in an environment where they are despised and then grow up to murder people, because they were taught since birth that they don’t matter. Or this child kills himself because he doesn’t matter. Yes, we should do this because the the parents that birthed these children are ALWAYS THE BEST. This included pedophiles you know.

    “Take away Natural Laws,”

    I’m all for this, I want to fly to work.

    “and that moral tie which supports justice and honesty,”

    Every single religious person I have ever met in my life says this: “as long as that guy who killed forty children and ate them repents and worships Jesus he will go to heaven.” Joy. Is that justice I ask? Honesty? I have never known many Christians to be honest people. They also cherry pick verses in the bible to suit their own needs, they don’t preach the whole bible and therefore lie. If you worship god and the bible that means you must follow ALL the bible. Not just some of it.

    “in a whole nation and establishes also particular duties in families,”

    Actually, in some places you can hit your children and abuse them, just so long as they go to school.

    “or in other relations of life;”

    Like what for example? I establish what in moral tie of other relations of life? How did this sentence make sense? I tried to break up the sentence and hardly anything has been making any amount of logical sense. Also, that should be a period. Not a semicolon. You finished a thought here, and then went on to do another type of thought down below.

    “and man becomes the most savage and ferocious of all animals,”

    That is not what the Smithsonian says. In a study they took children about two years old or so and did tests to see if they ‘enjoyed’ violence. For example this:
    Which did tests on small children that showed many of them gravitated towards the GOOD rather then the bad. So you are saying that ‘all men are evil’ is a logical fallacy. Because we are born knowing that those that HELP others do better in the wild then those that don’t.It is simple herd logic.

    “licentiousness becomes the consequence of independence.”

    Can’t you just use the words “without morals?” I mean come on, do you HAVE to use big words to make yourself sound smart but in the end just alienate people that you are trying to communicate, and get to agree with, in a state law, of according to… arg! Brain melting! I can’t even type, or speak like you. What you said here in this sentence is this simply this: “without moral guidance man is independent.” You do realize that don’t you? That you just said that, if mankind does not have morals forced upon him, he becomes independent. Rather then utterly dependent upon others. How did that sentence make sense to you? I mean seriously, how does it make sense?

    “Children are not pets one purchases from rescue shelters(adoption clinics)”

    So instead of having adoption clinics we should kill unwanted children? Because their parents would just abandon them in the wild and let them die, rather then allowing them a chance to be raised with a family.

    “and puppy mills(insemination and surrogacy).”

    Actually that is a false statement. A puppy mill is where a group of dogs is FORCED TO BARE CHILDREN UNTIL IT DIES. Which pretty much is basically what the bible wants you to do anyways. Also are you saying that women who have a terrible chance of getting pregnant with their husband the old fashioned way should use insemination for a better chance at conceiving his children?

    “Children are human beings endowed with a natural desire to be procreated from an engendered act of love between a husband and a wife.”


    There are so many cases of rape each year that go unreported. Not to mention that rams, have a 1-10% percent chance of being BORN GAY. Meaning they prefer same sex companionship to female companionship. Even if these rams are separated since birth from other rams they still so not procreate or enjoy the company of females. So babies are born ‘with desire to be with hetro couples’ is wrong. Since we are the lambs of god.

    “Same-sex marriage is adulterous by nature and thereby destructive to not only children, but to our civilization.”

    Actually it is not. Adultery is when a MARRIED man has sex with another women rather then his wife. Or his wife does the same with a man. So technically gay people can not commit adultery.

    “Here are two truths regarding marriage:”

    Here is a truth reguarding marriage via the bible:
    “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)

    “(1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and”

    What about two women? Gotta be fair here to the genders! Also, those gay penguins in New York successfully raised an egg, hatched it, and cared for the young better then their straight peers. What you seem to want is ONE money getter in the family allowing children to starve because their father can not earn enough money to feed them.

    “(2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil.”

    Who says gays are DENYING them this? I mean several have asked older children if it is alright to them to be adopted. What to know what most if not ALL said: “I want to live with a family. I don’t care what kind.” They just want a family. YOU ARE DENYING THESE CHILDREN A FAMILY. Because you are to must of a bigot to realize that children that are being adopt by couples that WANT them are happy. You would rather let these children grow up sad and HATED because YOU don’t want them.

    “Kids need and yearn for both.”

    Not really. I know many kids that either hate their mother, or just hate their father, then love the other one.

    “Same-sex marriage proponents demand “Marriage Equality”,”

    Yes, Yes they do.

    “yet, in return, they offer less-than-equal protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents.”

    Yes because we should force rapists to raise their children. We should let pedophiles raise their children. How many times must you say this? I mean seriously, do you actually trust a pedophile to raise his own children without harming them? You seriously want this? Okay, now we wont take away a pedophiles children after he RAPED them. Even the dad that RAPED HIS TWO MONTH YEAR OLD CHILD. We wont take the kid away from him. I hope you love fire, cause that statement alone assures me you are going to hell.

    “In fine, same-sex marriage surmounts to nothing more than an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”.

    You mean how you are ‘right’ for wanting pedophiles to not be taken away from their children? Oh lord forbid it.

    “No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” —Immanuel Kant.

    Joy a quote. Let me do my own.

    “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalm 137:9)
    Which is saying to kill your own children if they don’t listen to you.
    “The marriage institution cannot exist among slaves, and one sixth of the population of democratic America is denied it’s privileges by the law of the land. What is to be thought of a nation boasting of its liberty, boasting of it’s humanity, boasting of its Christianity, boasting of its love of justice and purity, and yet having within its own borders three millions of persons denied by law the right of marriage?”
    ― Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom

  • If marriage is not for love, well that would explain the divorce rate.

  • Esango priest helped my marriage. The problem was not between my husband and I, but from jealousy brought on by his family. Ever since we met, they have tried to sabotage our relationship. It felt to me as if I wasnt just married to him, but also his family, which was slowly dividing us. We were on the verge of divorcing, I consulted esangopriest@hotmail.com to find out if he could help save our marriage. I'm happy to say that he did and I can't thank him enough. So if you have a marriage problem contact esangopriest@hotmail.com.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2019. All rights reserved.