I supported the current law in Delaware that clarified that marriages recognized in our state are exclusively between a man and a woman. Now I support SB 27, which will make that age-old principle constitutional law. Court decisions in few states have shown the social engineers do not respect the laws of every state and the federal government. The only way to protect the collective wisdom of the ages is constitutional law. Thirty states have done this regarding marriage. It is time for Delaware to begin the process of a constitutional amendment. The Delaware process is slow and cumbersome. We have to pass an amendment through two consecutive General Assemblies. This means we can’t wait until a crisis is on our doorstep.

    Now some people are making the wild argument we shouldn’t pass a constitutional amendment keeping the status quo (which has existed our entire American history) because it would using the Constitution to deprive people of rights. That would be like saying passing a law against bank robbery is depriving me of my money. If it was never mine in the first place, I cannot be deprived of it. Same sex marriage never existed so keeping the status quo does not take anyone’s rights away. What is protected is the right of the people to make decisions and not a social engineer in a black robe in another state.

    Some legislators would say since we have a very well written defense of marriage law that we don’t need a constitutional amendment. I might have agreed with that a few years ago, but events have overtaken that point of view. Judges in this state may have to deal with divorces from Massachusetts or Connecticut. Without constitutional guidance, our judges could bring legal complexity and confusion to this state. The clear will of the people could be compromised. It happened in California and Maryland is grappling with this issue right now. Leadership is not about ducking your head down and hoping a problem doesn’t come to you. It is about being proactive.

    Some wonderful people have bought into the argument that marriage as currently constituted is discriminatory because it is only between the sexes and does not include people of the same sex. That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law.  Why can’t the lawyer just pass the insurance exam instead of the bar and be an attorney?  Isn’t there some law involved in it?  That’s silly, you say.  They are serving different functions and they don’t do the same thing. Neither do same sex couples and mixed sex couples serve the same functions in society. Marriage serves a unique role because it fulfills a unique responsibility. It was developed to provide a stable, recognized structure to build a family. It has worked throughout human history. Its success deserves preservation. SB 27 deserves passage.