At least David Anderson, at Delaware Politics, is honest enough to say:
Civil unions is not my issue, it would depend upon the legislation. I do not favor mandating the rights of marriage upon people who can not take on the responsibility of family. The concept of civil unions has some merit, but the application is not as innocuous due to the structure in the blue print legislation. I would likely oppose them do to the fact that they are an agenda driven vehicle to establish parity with marriage. If it is allowing a quick legal way for gay people to build a life together such as inheritance rights, joint purchases, health care decisions, financial transactions, health insurance and the like, I don’t care. The old domestic partnership legislation in CA was an example. Gays have a right to build their own institutions.
I do oppose CU if in the form put forward in CA, NJ and VT. In CA and NY, the existence of civil unions was used to challenge marriage under a separate but legal argument. They mandate recognition and protection from people who disagree such as grandma and grandpa renting a garage apartment or the church renting a hall for receptions. I don’t believe that the right of recognition is mandated, it is earned in the market place.
My answer is that I am opposed to non- discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation, openly proclaimed gays in the military, and hate crimes legislation. I don’t pretend to be in favor of equality on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe that homosexuality is not an activity worthy of legal protection nor worthy of legal prosecution. I do not believe that rights have any relation to the person with whom you choose to sleep. I just believe in treating everyone with equal dignity.
As kavips once remarked, the purpose of responding to David is not to convince David. That's not going to happen. It is unfortunate but he will spend his entire life in fear of radical queers and their fellow travelers destroying the sacred institution of marriage. The purpose of responding to David is to make the point to other people who might be reading.
So just a few observations:
1) David says, I do not favor mandating the rights of marriage upon people who can not take on the responsibility of family. So this statement means:
a) Heterosexual couples who either cannot (for biological reasons) or choose not to have children are not really married.
b) Gay couples in many States can not take on the responsibility of family because the laws prevent them from either adopting children or taking joint custody of children that one or the other partner may already have. In other words, David, to suggest that gay people do not want to take on the responsibility of family is simply a lie. Just ask Redwaterlilly.
2) David says he does not approve of openly proclaimed gays in the military, which raises the following interesting issues:
a) It is OK with David if the queers are quiet and stay in their place.
b) It is unacceptable to have openly gay soldiers in the military, but the military policy of providing moral waivers to individuals with convictions for rape, sexual assault, homocide, and assault is hunk-effing-dory. Obviously, rapists make better soldiers than homos.
3) David says, I do believe that homosexuality is not an activity worthy of legal protection nor worthy of legal prosecution. This means
a) David does not understand the distinction between homosexuals (people), homosexuality (sexual orientation), and homosexual acts. Maybe it's a part-of-speech thing. Maybe not.
b) What David appears to mean, grammar aside, is that I do not believe that homosexuals are worthy of legal protection. He won't say it that way, because in David's conceptual universe there are no homosexuals--as in people with a genetically based sexual orientation--there are only people who choose to take part in homosexual acts. And people who take part in homosexual acts are not worthy of legal protection. It's sort of analogous to saying people who choose to be African-American are not worthy of legal protection.
I agree with Mike Matthews that the odds are against SB 27 passing the legislature. I think there is even less chance that Jack Markell would sign it if somehow the bill managed to slip through. I think there is no chance the General Assembly would ever muster the votes to override his veto.
It is not sufficient to let this piece of bigotry die its natural death (although, like a vampire it will be back again next year).
It is critical that heterosexual Delawareans who believe in the promise of equality under the law stand up on this issue and remove the stigma associated with securing the rights of their fellow citizens.
You can do as XStryker suggested as call Leg Hall, which is a good thing.
But what really changes the way things are is the everyday courage necessary to say, when the subject comes up (and it will):
I support gay marriage, and not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.
It's uncomfortable the first few times, but it gets easier.
And it feels good.