Del. same-sex unions law heads to gov...

Del. same-sex unions law heads to gov's desk

There are 19 comments on the Newswatch 50 story from Apr 14, 2011, titled Del. same-sex unions law heads to gov's desk. In it, Newswatch 50 reports that:

DOVER, Del. - Delaware lawmakers have approved a bill authorizing same-sex civil unions and Democratic Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newswatch 50.

Franklin Stantoni

Omaha, NE

#1 Apr 14, 2011
wooooooohoooooooo! civil unions!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Apr 15, 2011
It's so despicable. For a long time, I didn't care about these. Now I see red every time I read that "civil unions passed!" That means the anti-gay got their way. That means their crying, weepy, rapist nonsense carried the day. THIS LAW IS NOT A BAD THING, mind you. But I will remain firm as steel that it is *NOT* the same protection as marriage, period, the end.

Of course, what *should* be done about that *isn't* being done. Every single state that has civil unions right now, every single time any gay couple encounters a problem on the (governmental, official) level of *someone looking at them wrong* because of a lack of understanding that civil unions equate to marriage, EVERY one of those couples should start a lawsuit. Every last one. Not a soul in existence in any of those states in an OFFICIAL capacity should be treating you ANY differently from a married couple, and every millisecond it happens, lawsuits should proliferate. Unfortunately, this is not happening for various reasons that the pro-gay only get defensive about. In the meantime, I see this as a *HALF*-victory in Delaware and absolutely, utterly nothing more. It counts procedurally, and nothing else. NOTHING will replace full and exact equality, but that's probably going to be a long time coming and will probably fail in Rhode Island and New York. I'd *love* to be wrong but I have no faith in this movement anymore -- not based on any bitterness or theory or speculation but based literally, solely *on the track record I see*.
duped since birth

Lewes, DE

#3 Apr 15, 2011
Does this mean that I will be able to be "civilized"? Or "unionized"?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4 Apr 15, 2011
Progress is progress and people should be happy for it. Life isn't fair, and we usually don't get everything we want right away. But having many rights that we didn't have yesterday is clear progress. And there is one truth our opponents keep uttering: Civil unions are just a first step toward marriage equality. Start believing.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#5 Apr 15, 2011
Step to the back of the bus please.....
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#6 Apr 15, 2011
SUPPOSEDLY.... BEFORE spring ends, the New York Legislature will vote on a Marriage Equality bill.

I am caustiously optimistic, since the last vote in 2009, when Senate Democrats killed the bill.

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#7 Apr 15, 2011
hi hi wrote:
It's so despicable. For a long time, I didn't care about these. Now I see red every time I read that "civil unions passed!" That means the anti-gay got their way. That means their crying, weepy, rapist nonsense carried the day. THIS LAW IS NOT A BAD THING, mind you. But I will remain firm as steel that it is *NOT* the same protection as marriage, period, the end.
Of course, what *should* be done about that *isn't* being done. Every single state that has civil unions right now, every single time any gay couple encounters a problem on the (governmental, official) level of *someone looking at them wrong* because of a lack of understanding that civil unions equate to marriage, EVERY one of those couples should start a lawsuit. Every last one. Not a soul in existence in any of those states in an OFFICIAL capacity should be treating you ANY differently from a married couple, and every millisecond it happens, lawsuits should proliferate. Unfortunately, this is not happening for various reasons that the pro-gay only get defensive about. In the meantime, I see this as a *HALF*-victory in Delaware and absolutely, utterly nothing more. It counts procedurally, and nothing else. NOTHING will replace full and exact equality, but that's probably going to be a long time coming and will probably fail in Rhode Island and New York. I'd *love* to be wrong but I have no faith in this movement anymore -- not based on any bitterness or theory or speculation but based literally, solely *on the track record I see*.
Rdg? Is that you? I miss your posts like a lover.

:(

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Apr 15, 2011
8 states with civil unions/domestic partnerships plus 5 states with marriage equality.

That's over 1/4th of the states with some form of equality for gay & lesbian couples.

We're making progress, slowly but surely.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Apr 15, 2011
With Markellís signature, the bill will take effect Jan. 1. The legislation gives gay couples the same rights and obligations of those who are married. But it makes clear that marriage is between a man and a woman....Lawmakers voted mostly along party lines Thursday, with Democrats in favor and Republicans voting for amendments opposed by the bill proponents.

New Castle County Republicans Nick Manolakos and Michael Ramone broke ranks with the GOP caucus to vote for the bill, while conservative Democrats William Carson of Smryna and John Atkins of Millsboro voted against it.

"I truly believe in my heart itís the right thing to do," Manolakos said.

Eight of the nine amendments were offered by GOP lawmakers, including two similar to those that were rejected in the Senate last week. One would have authorized civil unions for man-woman couples, not just those of the same sex. The other would have required that Delaware voters approve civil unions in a statewide referendum before they could take effect.

Lawmakers also defeated an amendment offered by Carson stating that no one could be held liable for refusing, for religious reasons, to participate or assist in any event related to a marriage or civil union.

http://www.edgeftlauderdale.com/index.php...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 Apr 15, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY.... BEFORE spring ends, the New York Legislature will vote on a Marriage Equality bill.
I am caustiously optimistic, since the last vote in 2009, when Senate Democrats killed the bill.
How many republicans voted YES on that bill?(we've been thru this before)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#11 Apr 15, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY.... BEFORE spring ends, the New York Legislature will vote on a Marriage Equality bill.
I am caustiously optimistic, since the last vote in 2009, when Senate Democrats killed the bill.
In 2009 no Republican in the NY legislature voted FOR SSM. So why do you insist on blaming the Dems?
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#12 Apr 15, 2011
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>In 2009 no Republican in the NY legislature voted FOR SSM. So why do you insist on blaming the Dems?
Because IF those DEMOCRATIC Senators had voted FOR the bill, it would have passed and the Governor had promised to sign it into law. But those DEMOCRATIC Senators who voted AGAINST the bill prevented it from becoming law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Apr 15, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Because IF those DEMOCRATIC Senators had voted FOR the bill, it would have passed and the Governor had promised to sign it into law. But those DEMOCRATIC Senators who voted AGAINST the bill prevented it from becoming law.
As did every Republican Senator who voted against the bill.

Why do you expect a Democrat to support marriage equality but not Republicans?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Apr 15, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Because IF those DEMOCRATIC Senators had voted FOR the bill, it would have passed and the Governor had promised to sign it into law. But those DEMOCRATIC Senators who voted AGAINST the bill prevented it from becoming law.
So if it fails this time in the Senate will you be blaming to Republicans for failing to pass it since they have the majority in the Senate??
Audrey

Dover, DE

#15 Apr 15, 2011
You Know this is no surprise to me, the Bible speaks of this generation were by Women will laydown with woman and man will laydown with man, IN an unnatural fashion, I understand this does not surprise me. This is just proof that the Bible is correct. And that this is still a Sin.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#16 Apr 15, 2011
Audrey wrote:
You Know this is no surprise to me, the Bible speaks of this generation were by Women will laydown with woman and man will laydown with man, IN an unnatural fashion, I understand this does not surprise me. This is just proof that the Bible is correct. And that this is still a Sin.
You're right. Because I take the bible strictly literally. So as to not break that commandment, whenever I have sex with a cute guy, I ALWAYS INSIST that we have sex on our knees.

:)
duped since birth

Lewes, DE

#17 Apr 16, 2011
Audrey wrote:
You Know this is no surprise to me, the Bible speaks of this generation were by Women will laydown with woman and man will laydown with man, IN an unnatural fashion, I understand this does not surprise me. This is just proof that the Bible is correct. And that this is still a Sin.
Know whereof ye speak before opening thy mouth. Where is the reference to "this generation," o wise one? Does it give a year, say 2011? There is no proof that your sacred text is anything but a stone age set of fables cobbled together by various groups (of men) who were pursuing their own political ends. For instance, it wasn't until the 4th century that it was decided (voted upon) that jesus was actually a god - before that, there were many different opinions. The books that ended up in your bible are the books that supported that viewpoint; all other books were discarded.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18 Apr 16, 2011
Audrey wrote:
You Know this is no surprise to me, the Bible speaks of this generation were by Women will laydown with woman and man will laydown with man, IN an unnatural fashion, I understand this does not surprise me. This is just proof that the Bible is correct. And that this is still a Sin.
You haven't actually READ the Bible, have you?

Please provide the exact scripture your are referring to, along with the coultural context, to prove your assertion.

Show that is about people who can only be attracted to the same gender, and not a ancient hebrew law for levites, or a admonition against temple prostitution.

Good luck.

“I'm a Tool”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#19 May 15, 2011
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't actually READ the Bible, have you?
Please provide the exact scripture your are referring to, along with the coultural context, to prove your assertion.
Show that is about people who can only be attracted to the same gender, and not a ancient hebrew law for levites, or a admonition against temple prostitution.
Good luck.
Somehow I don't think you will get a reply from them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jack Markell Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Markell Says He'd Welcome Syrian Refugees (Sep '15) Sep '15 nosyrianrefugess 1
News New Law In Delaware Adds Electronic Smoking Dev... (Jul '15) Jul '15 yawn 4
News Delaware governor issues Darwin Day proclamation (Jan '15) Jan '15 NotFooled 1
News Markell earns award for clean water initiative (Nov '14) Nov '14 Mary Valimont 1
News On Mary Burke and jobs (Oct '14) Oct '14 bob 1
News Kicking The Can Down The Road: A Habit That's H... (Jul '14) Sep '14 ROMAN OIL COMPANY 31
News Standout Delaware Charter School expands (Sep '14) Sep '14 Boo 1
More from around the web