Skip to main content

XStryker's seven best reasons for you to oppose SB 27

Check out XStryker's call for action at Delawareliberal to help defeat SB 27, the start of a Constitutional amendment to not only make gay marriage permanently illegal in Delaware, but also to outlaw civil unions.

Here are his seven points for calling legislators:

Make sure to say the following when you call:

Senate Bill 27 will PERMANENTLY OUTLAW CIVIL UNIONS.
1. Gay Marriage is already not legal in Delaware - this bill is REALLY about Civil Unions .

2. Major state employers like DuPont, AstraZeneca, and the big banks offer Domestic Partnership benefits. This bill sends the wrong message in the current economy and will give their employees an incentive to live (and shop) in New Jersey or Maryland (which recognize Domestic Partnerships).

3. This bill is bad for the economy - it will chase away entrepenuers

4. According to Gallup, 55% of Americans support Civil Unions, and Delaware is more socially progressive than the average state.

5. It would be very unfair and undemocratic if the legislature amended the constitution to ban something that a majority of Delawareans support.

6. If this amendment passes, Delaware will become the ONLY state in the Northeast to ban Civil Unions.


Remember, they will ask for your name and address, so act civilly and don’t curse.


I realize that people of good conscience can disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage (although I have never been shown a convincing, fact-based argument for opposing it), but it is a basic Libertarian tenet that personal contracts should not, as a general rule, be regulated by the State.

This is massive State intrusion into the private lives of Delaware citizens.

Make the phone calls that Xstryker recommends. I have and I will continue to do so.

Comments

Well, I don't read DL, so I guess I'll have to use my own gut.

I'm constructing my letter to Cloutier now, and will both e-mail and fax it today.

I don't do phone; that's Chainsaw's area.
Anonymous said…
Perhaps it's overly utopian of me, but I have strong objections to those arguments despite agreeing with the conclusions.

1 tactitly implies that banning gay marriage is acceptable.

2 and 3 are overly utilitarian. One could equally argue that we should ban civil unions since it would save employers money by not paying benefits.

4 and 5 suggest that it's just an issue of majority rules rather than an issue of rights. That may play with politicians, but I find it difficult to believe that many people would stop supporting equal rights if there was a 6% shift in public sentiment.

6 is just pointless. If it were the only state to outlaw slavery, that would be no reason to start permitting it.

If someone really believes that those are the seven (six?) best reasons to oppose criminalizing (certain) marriages/somewhat-similar-contracts-with-a-different-name, it seems to me that they're willing to lose the war for the sake of winning the battle.

By contrast, I have only one reason to oppose such a bill: it's morally wrong.

By all means, call in your opposition to the bill (since gradualism in practice is the best we'll ever see), but (assuming you have principles) have the integrity to make a principled stand.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?