Thursday, May 29, 2008

An Open Question for all Delaware gubernatorial candidates. . .


Do you have as much integrity as New York Governor David Paterson?

From the New York Times (via Waldo):

On May 14, Mr. Paterson’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, wrote a memo to all state agency heads that directed them to evaluate their policies and begin rewriting them so they comply with a state appeals court decision that said New York must recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions like Canada and California.

At a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Paterson repeated the directive and said that although he supports gay marriage and will continue to push for it in the future, this was not an “end run around the Legislature” but merely his interpretation of current laws on the books.

“I’m following the law as it always has existed,” he said.

Asked to respond to critics of the directive, he said, “I would suggest that if they went back and read the law, that they would come to a different interpretation themselves, even if they disagree with the concept of marriage equality.

“If I didn’t take this action,” he added, “I would leave this state open to law suits. I would leave the state treasury open to monetary damages.”


Here's the choice for Jack Markell, John Carney, Bill Lee, Mike Protack, and even Rob Foraker:

Prove that you support the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, or. . . .

. . . . just get it over with and endorse the Still and Venables proposed Delaware Constitutional amendment (Senate Bill 156) to keep those damn queers in their place (which is somewhere else but not here) (except during the summer when they spend a lot of money at the Beach) (we hate queers but we will still take their money in the parking meters). . . .

SPONSOR:
Sen. Still & Sen. Venables

Sens. Bonini; Reps. Ewing, Hocker, Lee, Thornburg

DELAWARE STATE SENATE
144th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SENATE BILL NO. 156

AN ACT PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RELATING TO SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS.


BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE (Two-thirds of all members elected to each house thereof concurring therein):


Section 1. Amend Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Delaware by adding thereto the following:
“Section 11. Marriage is prohibited and void between persons of the same gender. A marriage obtained or recognized outside this State between persons of the same gender shall not constitute a legal or valid marriage within this State. The uniting of two persons of the same gender in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same gender legal relationship shall not be valid or recognized in this State.”.


Here's just one really big reason why you guys need to take a stand.

Suppose a gay couple that some demon-worshipping Satanist has married in Massachusetts or California moves to Delaware.

One partner takes a position at DelDot; the other teaches public school.

If the State of Delaware does not recognize their marriage as valid, both individuals will have to pay health insurance premiums.

If, on the other hand, Delaware recognizes their marriage as valid, neither has to pay health insurance premiums, because they are a State-share couple.

Aside from the ethical issues, can't you just see the lucrative discrimination lawsuit?

(With apologies to Becky for stealing the cool illustration)

2 comments:

Hube said...

Steve: Agreed on any equal protection questions; however, I would assume you'd agree that 1) The NY legislature can pass a bill that'd go against Paterson's edict, and 2) that states do indeed have a right to refuse to recognize gay "marriages" performed in other states.

Senate Bill 156 should have a section guaranteeing equal protection for gays, in the guise, I'd assume, of civil unions (meaning DE wouldn't recognize gay "marriages" but would regard them as civil unions for the purposes of the state).

Steve Newton said...

Hube
My position would be that all the government can ever approve are civil unions for anybody. "Marriage" as such is a religious sanctification institution.

So as long as DE recognizes civil unions for benefits computation I suppose it would be a start.