Hey Delaware!

Hey Delaware! May 7, 2013

A reader writes:

Like myself, many if not most of you have gay friends and relatives whom you love. You know that persons of homosexual orientation have suffered insults or worse at the hands of bigots. You, like me, want to see the animosity between the “straight” and the “LGBT” communities resolved through means of justice, understanding, mutual respect as opposed to the frailties of human nature that stir us to anger and injustice.

BUT…  re-defining marriage in order to accomodate “same-sex marriage” is not the answer.  Most Christian churches, and most especially the Catholic Church, teach that sexual activity belongs to the state of holy matrimony entered in to by a man and a woman for mutual salvation and the raising up of children. For purposes of equality, a civil union law was enacted in Delaware two years ago which extends the legal privileges of marriage to same-sex couples. The re-definition of marriage itself, which is the purpose of HB 75, is redundant.

For the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, HB 75 opens up a can of worms that threatens the religious freedom of Christians in this country. Although churches are exempted from the requirement to hold same-sex marriages, Christian business men and women are not. They will, under this law, be required to offer wedding services to same-sex couples or face legal action for discrimination. Even the protections for churches will not hold for long against the legal assault to come. And here’s why.

The proponents of same-sex marriage position this as a civil rights issue, like the ending of segregation in the 50’s. However, the anti-segregation laws did not provide exceptions for churches.  Why not? Because the courts and legislators realized that if segregation was TRULY a violation of civil rights, then segregated churches were as much in violation of justice as segregated schools. If same-sex marriage is TRULY a civil rights issue, there should be no exception for churches. The fact that there is, argues two things: 1) that most folks realize it’s not a true civil rights issue at heart and 2) that those who DO believe it is a true civil rights issue will never give up on removing the exception. Our religious liberties are at stake.

HB 75 will be debated and most likely voted on today, Tuesday May 7. What can you do?

1. Follow the link below for a step by step contact of your senator. You will enter information.  The program will then figure out who your senator is and let you phone or leave him or her a message:


2. Come to Legislative Hall in Dover tomorrow by noon to make your presence known as the law is debated.

Thank you for your consideration.

"It wasn't necessary and isn't. After he was announced a heretic by 100 bishops in ..."

A reader has a question about ..."
""Heresy" is the theological opinion of the losing side. If it could be demonstrated to ..."

A reader has a question about ..."
"Well, in this particular case, ding-doing, "typical" means "typically of a type." Your *type* is ..."

Some Bad News
"It isn't my burden to show you any of this Karen. You seem completely oblivious ..."

Some Bad News

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Imp the Vladaler

    If same-sex marriage is TRULY a civil rights issue, there should be no exception for churches.


  • TomD

    One of the next steps in this process will be the filing of lawsuits by same-sex parishioners against diocese, parishes and/or priests who refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for them . . . not as civil ceremonies, but as sacramental weddings. As the author states, if same-sex marriage is ruled a civil right, that right will most likely be ruled in future lawsuits to trump any claim of religious freedom made by the defendants of these lawsuits. This is coming next.

    • kenofken

      No court in the U.S. has ever given the slightest hint that it would mandate matters of doctrine or internal matters or the conferral of sacraments. Even in extreme cases of late where some congregations refused to perform interracial marriages, there is, so far as I know, no legal recourse to force them to do so. The Supreme Court has also granted churches very wide exemption from many anti-discrimination and workplace laws for anyone who is employed in any “ministerial” capacity, however slight.

  • TomD

    Kenofken, even if correct, the fact that, “[n]o court in the U.S. has ever given
    the slightest hint that it would mandate matters of doctrine or internal
    matters or the conferral of sacraments,” provides little guidance or
    solace for the future. There are numerous things that courts in the
    U.S. had not given the slightest hint they would do, until they did

    The rulings this June on the relevant cases at the U.S.
    Supreme Court will provide us with some guidance as to the Court’s
    current tendency. We are entering uncharted territory, in a time very
    different from the one in which Loving v. Virginia was decided and
    enforced, and no one knows what the Court will do on this matter.

    That lawsuits will be filed related to the refusal to marry same-sex couples
    is inevitable; given the current political and legal climate, how those
    lawsuits are settled is anybody’s guess.