Delaware Senate defeats weakened version of proposed constitutional amendment on marriage; legislative debates raises issue of discrimination

03/27/09 Sussex Countian:

By a vote of 11-9, the Delaware state Senate has defeated Senate Substitute 1 (SS1), a proposed amendment of the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriages, but would "not preclude civil union law for future consideration." Just before yesterday's vote (but apparently after debate?), SS1 was "was introduced and adopted in lieu of SB 27," which would have extended the ban to civil unions.

The Sussex Countian neglects this critical substitution. In fact, the newspaper had earlier reported that, according to SB 27 sponsor Sen. Robert Venables, SB 27 would allow the state legislature to enact a civil unions law. Apparently, on the day of the Senate floor vote, Venables had to acknowledge that the more farreaching aim of SB 27 would guarantee its defeat, so he substituted SS1 as a last-ditch effort.

Source of article reference: ADF Alliance Alert

03/27/09 Delaware News Journal:

This article has details about yesterday's state Senate debate on SB 27, and about the state House debate that preceded passage of HB 6, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"More than 1,000 demonstrators wearing white T-shirts with the slogan 'One Man, One Woman -- That's Marriage' rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall as, inside, both chambers engaged in lengthy debates colored by accusations of discrimination past and present."

Nicole Theis, executive director of the Delaware Family Policy Council, testified for SB 27, while Drewry Fennell, executive director of the ACLU in Delaware, spoke against it.

"Whatever you put into public policy reflects what happens in the classroom," Theis said, holding up copies of children's books that depict gay characters. "I think most people would agree, how you want to live is up to you, but don't teach it in the classroom."

(The Yes on 8 Campaign also advertised fear of classroom instruction as a reason to vote for Prop. 8.)

"Elevating a prohibition that isn't based on one thing but discriminatory feelings is wrong," Fennell said. "That's not what we use the constitution for. I think it sends a message that many of you would not want to be sending."

03/27/09 Concord Monitor:

New Hampshire Rep. Melanie Levesque expressed the same concern yesterday about singling out gays and lesbians for discrimination. A "Brookline Democrat who is black and married to a white man," she made her comment during debate in the New Hampshire House, which passed HB 436, providing equal access to marriage. Like Fennell, she thinks that prejudice motivates opponents of same-sex marriage. As today's Concord Monitor reports, Levesque "said many of the same cautions raised against same-sex marriage - that it violates God's will and that children raised in such a family will be endangered - had previously been raised against interracial marriage. "

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.