Marriage Equality in Delaware in 2013?
Governor Markell spoke to the Huffington Post and tells them that he thinks that marriage equality in Delaware might be as close as 2013, when he expects the legislature to take it up. That is a surprise and it is good news.
Markell, a Democrat, supports legalizing same-sex marriage, and he has said in the past that he believes marriage equality is “inevitable” in his state. He previously predicted the Delaware legislature would take up the issue “probably within the next few years.”
But in an interview at The Huffington Post’s offices on Monday, Markell said he expected the legislature to work on it as soon as the next session.
While the HuffPo notes that recent victories for marriage equality were specifically led by the Governors of those states, Markell says he would be willing to play the same role, but is expecting a great deal of grassroots support to get it done.
Along the same line, four blue states will have marriage equality up on the ballot this year, and all four states have polling that says these measures will pass. Cautious optimism is in order, it is early in the game, and the bigoted and their churches haven’t gotten into the fray yet. But it would be quite the achievement and would help to provide some momentum to any effort in Delaware.
Tags: Jack Markell, Marriage Equality
This is great news for everybody regardless of party. At the Delaware State Fair, Chuck Mead-e collected over 3,000 more signatures for the marriage equality petition. I believe (this is not an official figure) that this brings the petition drive to the 11-13,000-name vicinity.
But we need more, particularly now that the Delaware Family Values (or whatever the hell they are called) have caught on and are organizing a counter petition.
If you haven’t signed the same petition that Pete Schwarzkopf, Mitch Crane, Miss Delaware, and all of our Libertarian candidates have signed, you can do so electronically here:
http://bit.ly/LNxfOB
Please pass it around: the intent is to get as close to 28,000-30,000 signatures by January to provide as much support for pro-equality legislators as we can.
Let’s give Gov. Markell the legislature he needs to pass this bill next year.
http://www.delawarerighttomarry.com/2012/08/gov-markell-marriage-equality-might.html
How about adding polygamy, polyandry and group marriage options?
(I think any consenting adults or group of consenting adults should be able to enter into any sort of an agreement they wish. If matrimonial law then becomes the most dynamic growth industry of the next 1000 years, so be it!)
Desperation doesn’t look good on you, rockland.
Rockland: I agree. We should let the polygamists and polyandrists fight for their rights, just as blacks and gays did. I look forward to supporting your cause as soon as you form such a group and start lobbying.
Rockland, I disagree. Group marriage brings a lot more vectors into a divorce proceeding It places a burden on the civil system that’s different from contracts between only 2 consenting adultsl
Here’s some video from the fight for marriage equality in New Jersey. Scroll down to “testimony from citizens” for some of the more poignant moments. http://goo.gl/EmZS6
This is the civil rights issue of our generation and it must be won by people who want to see marriage equality in Delaware.
Strictly my opinion: This is a contract issue not civil rights issue. Giving the government the power to define the contract of marriage grants rights to some and takes from others. All voluntary contracts should be recognized so long as they do not contradict other rights granted to us through our Constitution. Therefore gay marriage, polygamy would be accepted under contract law.
However, I also believe that religious liberty is important for the faith community, and churches should not be required to confer thof sacrament of marriage on polygamists or gays. The main point being that the sacrent of marriage is different than the contract of marriage.
If religious institutions want to be bigots in their own buildings and discriminate, they should be free to…. they should also have to pay taxes… I bet money is more important to them then their false outrage.
And since the only thing that the State can regulate (and the only thing it regulates about marriage) is the terms of the contract, this is all marriage equality advocates are lobbying for. Churches are free to solemnize relationships or not, but the state should not be able to tell two grown adults that they cannot execute a marriage contract.
socialistic ben- so because people believe in their religion they are bigots? Anyone who disagrees with you are either a racist, bigot or just plan stupid. And everything with you has to do with money. Tax them if they dont believe what “I” believe then see what they say. Yet you have no issue with taxing the rest of us when we dont believe in your policies. This is why the D are so close minded and will lose in November.
The party with the big tent as long as you agree with everything we say. Wow
Tax the churches so the government can generate new revenue to waste? Why raise the standard up to include non profits such as churches? Shouldn’t we lower the standard down so the government would be taxing everyone much less? Look at the history of taxation. Income tax is a component of serfdom and existed only since 1913 and briefly during the civil war. However I wouldn’t advocate a zero percent income tax, just much lower than what we have today.
LY: Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is endorsed by your “religion” or not. People against marriage equality are bigots because creating a second-class citizenry is a bigoted action, regardless of the role of religion in creating that bigotry in your mind and behavior.
You, by the way, have no problem taxing those of us who would like to defund the military and the intelligence agencies. That line of “reasoning” works both ways.
“Shouldn’t we lower the standard down so the government would be taxing everyone much less?”
No. Taxes already are at their lowest levels in 60 years. You could look it up.
“Look at the history of taxation. Income tax is a component of serfdom”
Please explain how being taxed is equivalent to “serfdom.”
You can lower taxes; stating that taxes being at their lowest level in 60 years does not even support an argument that they can’t be lower. Please clarify how that supports your argument. Is there some financial cliff we will fall off if they are any lower than their current rates? Please explain.
The government is inefficient at anything they do besides fighting a war. Socialism is the perfect government to fight wars because a war requires central planning. Our government took on some socialist policies to create the war machine that won WW2. The free market couldnt do that. Without that we would have lost. However we didn’t shed much of that political philosophy after the war.
Taxation is a component of serfdom. In the feudal system everyone paid their superiors and, in turn, the lords kept a fighting force and a system of order much like what we have today. The lords collected by using coercion. Our government has a monopoly on coercion. It would be easier for you to tell me how taxation is not a component of serfdom.
Also geezer I would like to see military spending cut. However the intelligence agencies get a majority of their funding from illegal operations. You would be disturbed to see how they do it. Cutting theoney we give to them wouldn’t neutralize them. I am not sure how we could.
I have long been an advocate of getting the government out of the marriage business. Contracts civil and otherwise they can and should regulate. Religions are free to solemnize whoever and whatever they wish. ANY two people should be allowed to establish a civil union, regardless of whether they are the same sex, opposite sex, or no sex I suppose.
However, I also recognize that I limited the union to two people and that it is a legitimate quesition to ask why just two? Why not three, or four, or more? And if you limit the number what’s the rationale for not having limits on the “any”?
The number two is a construct of our concept of marriage. But other cultures have plural marriages. So should we adopt those concepts from other cultures? Where do we draw the line or is there a line? My feeling is that there is a limit of two because I am a product of our culture which does not recognize plural marriages but there I go tying a civil union to marriage when my objective is to separate them. Other than marriage is there some other reason to constrain civil unions to two people?
“Also geezer I would like to see military spending cut.”
I would rather phrase in more precise terms because the devil is in the details, not just in military spending but in all spending. For instance, advocating “that that we reduce manpower by 250,000 troops because we are no longer going to fight manpower instensive conflicts which will save $XXXXXXXX” is being specific about what should be done and how much it will save. By the way I am not advocating that we reduce troop strength, I’m just using that as an example.
It is easy to say “cut spending.” But what is being cut? What mission will we no longer do? It’s the same for any agency or any program. That’s the problem with politicians who talk in generalities saying things like “Get rid of government regulations” Oh yeah? Which ones? Why was the regulation created in the first place? How will that translate into increased hiring? Politicians say people don’t want to know those details, but I am one person who does want to know.
“You can lower taxes; stating that taxes being at their lowest level in 60 years does not even support an argument that they can’t be lower. Please clarify how that supports your argument.”
Of course you could continue to lower taxes, if you’re unconcerned about paying for government services. Taxes were higher during many periods of high growth; they were low throughout the last decade, which even before the recession had lower job growth than any decade since WWII.
“The government is inefficient at anything they do besides fighting a war.”
Demonstrably false. The services government provides routinely are provided at far lower cost to the consumer than those same services provided by the private sector. Simple and obvious reasons include the lack of profit and the low salaries common in the public sector.
“Taxation is a component of serfdom.”
You have fallen into a logical fallacy. Taxation also is a component of several other sorts of political systems. You know what system has no taxation? Communism. Since there’s no private property, you neither own nor owe anything.
“the intelligence agencies get a majority of their funding from illegal operations. You would be disturbed to see how they do it.”
Indeed I would. I would also be interested in how you know this, because I highly doubt its veracity.
DEvoter302, There is someone over at Delawarepolitics.net say the gold standard is bullshit. You better head over there and sort them out.
lib yeap, if your religion is bigoted, then yes… following it makes you a bigot…. im sure you dont know this, but “Christians” used to say keeping slaves was following their religion. they used to say burning Jews was following their religion. Extremist Muslims who blow up orphanages do so because they are following their faith. that argument is so beaten to death im shocked you bigots still use it. Stop offending God by using him/her to back up your hate.
Aren’t some of the Clergy/Churches/Pastors in Delaware/Wilmington opposed to Same Sex Marriages?
No doubt. Your point being?
I was just wondering, since folks here know what is going on in Real time.
so if one goes to a place of religion which spouts bigoted thougths also make that person a bigot?
The taxes are low because the tax base (wage earners) are down as well as those of us that do work income is down.
So if you raise our taxes now and people begin to work, will you lower them when the need to provide a ‘saftey net’ are less?
If two people want to have the same benefits as those that are married in a place of worship, I am fine with that. Just call it a civil union. Let the place of workship define what it calls marriage.
Then you have to replace all of the laws in the country that refer to marriage and replace it with “civil union”.
lib yeap, i follow a religion that says marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women…. why are you using your faith to oppress mine? bigot.
@geezer: what services do they provide at a lower cost? The most recent one to make the news being our space program. Why are they offering money to private companies to develop space planes rather than NASA? Answer is efficiency; they do so at a lower cost. Why does the government hire private companies to build the new Route 1 entrance ramp from 95? Because they do so at a lower cost. You’ve confused government workers with private sector workers Geezer.
You are correct taxes were high at periods before high growth. Those periods of high growth, what even liberal media calls bubbles, were interestingly followed by depressions and recessions. And I am sure your argument to pump stimulus money into the economy is to prevent the business cycle? That is a cause of the business cycle as we know it.
Taxation is a component of serfdom. I apologize for not clarifying that I am speaking about our current expectations of tax rates. I thought you had some reading comprehension skills, my mistake. Nowhere did I state I want no taxation. Would you also tell the founders that they are wrong? I’m just restating their principles that founded the country and political system you live in.
@jason330: the same gold standard we used before fractional reserve lending which put us in this hole? I’m more for just printing paper and having a “safety net”, how the hell did we ever survive before you graced us with your genius?
One could look at the healthcare provided by Medicare and the VA or you could make the argument that the post office is a pseudo-governmental agency that operates much more efficiently than FedEx or UPS (why don’t you mail your bills in using FedEx anyway?).
I could go on, but you seem to have your mind made up that government only wastes money, so enjoy that little delusion. Meanwhile, we will try to make the money that government spends work better.
Haha I’m sorry but you are truly delusional. The VA and government healthcare? You must not be a veteran. And the USPS is a terrible example since they are beyond bankrupt. Next…
At least you can see a commonality in your theory: all the things you mentioned provide terrible service while their private sector counterparts provide a higher quality service.
So why haven’t veterans flocked to other forms of free-market healthcare, and why is the post office still delivering letters for about 10% of the cost of it’s competitors?
As for it’s “bankruptcy” it is being forced to fund double it’s employee retirement benefits while other companies are raiding theirs…
@liberalgeek: The People subsidize veterans’ healthcare. Veterans do not flock to private healthcare, because the Department of Veterans Affairs provides them with discounted and free healthcare.
Davy, thank you for offering facts but obviously this crowd prefers emotional arguments.
Um… LG’s point is Davy’s point.
LG asks: “So why haven’t veterans flocked to other forms of free-market healthcare”
Answer: They like their (subsidized, discounted, free) socialized medicine.
But hey, I’m probably being emotional.
woah. So I just read this entire thread…I am all for discussion but there seems to be some hot tempers. How about some definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Be careful when you use that word, you often turn into one yourself. I am a catholic and the church is against same sex marriage, does that make me a bigot – no. It makes them wrong and I know some day they will know it too. Sadly religious organizations are not democracies, so often just because I am part of it doesn’t mean I have a say in what they support publicly. I support a marriage definition in the sense it should be between two adult parties. Really I don’t think there should be any need for this law. Same sex marriage in no way impacts my life, just the lives of my friends. We shouldn’t restrict other’s rights. As for multi-party marriage. I am willing to listen to rational arguments for and against but again, I really don’t feel this is something I should have a voice in.
Next there was the battle royal over taxes. The definition of a serf is:a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner. To some extent we do have that problem in a very abstract way. People are tied to their homes because of bad loans and underwater property but I don’t think the above reference was very accurate. Serfs were slaves in all but name. Comparing them to today is a bit extreme and comparing paying taxes to an agreed upon government structure is very different. Communism was a result of rising against the practice of serfdom and the Constitution allow the government to raise money. The rest is just how they get it and how they spend it.
We need a government – we need to all spend some money to fund that government. I personally am proud we have a system of order to reasonably collect funds from the public for government use and would be happy to pay more.