Thanks to Mike Matthews for updating us on this controversial topic. From his direct and unfiltered account, it is obvious that more people feel compelled to support human rights, then feel the need to sequester them… Unfortunately the minority opinion has more votes in the committee hearing the merits of this bill..
Again, a minority of bigots have held up progress on the issue of human rights.. Today, those bigots are:
Senator Tony DeLuca: District 11 Newark Southeast
Thurman Adams: District 19 Bridgeville
Nancy Cook: District 15 Kenton
Gary Simpson: District 18 Milford
In a sense of fairness, if I misjudged your motives, you are certainly welcome to offer the explanation of your vote to keep this important bill off the floor of the Senate…. It is so easy to do, that even one of your staffers can do it for you….
But be forewarned, failure to offer your counter argument here on these pages, will in the realm of public opinion, only serve to solidify the charges made herein against you….
Actually I didn’t make them… Your own actions on May 13th, at 2:40 pm did that for you.
kavips 
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 13, 2009 at 3:23 pm
kavips
Mike, I hope you don’t mind my using your words as my title. i played with several options, but your own words were the only one that felt right.
Thanks.
May 13, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Mike Matthews
Kavips,
No problem at all. Thanks for the link-back. It was certainly a fascinating committee meeting. A committee meeting in which I predicted the outcome, which makes it rather a waste of time and gas money. But I’m glad I was there!
May 13, 2009 at 6:36 pm
kavips
So was I… It was interesting hanging on to every word… awaiting the outcome in real time…
I’m disappointed I got DeLuca wrong… I thought he was a better number counter, or more in tune with his district, than that….
May 13, 2009 at 9:43 pm
delawarerepublican
Let me offer a different view. Some of the folks who voted against may have different ideas but indeed to equate sexual orientation with civil or human rights doesn’t hold for everyone.
Civil rights when I was a kid had to do with access to public facilities and voting and was based on skin colon not an action.
In the end, it would be better and smarter to pass a law to prevent discrimination against a person’s identity-equal protection.
Thanks, Mike Protack
May 14, 2009 at 7:38 am
PBaumbach
Protack and the four NO vote senators have yet to explain to me how a landlord being able to kick you out because your are gay or lesbian shouldn’t be illegal in Delaware.
Headline bigotry in the 60s was based on skin color, and gender.
Headline bigotry in this decade is based on sexual orientation.
Different decade, same bigotry.
To end this, call your state senator now, and urge them on June 2nd, Petition Day, to sign the petition to bring HB5 to the senate floor for a vote.
May 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm
delawarerepublican
Let me refresh your memory and why don’t you read the above again.
If you have a law preventing discrimination based on identity we are all protected-everyone. The actions you take are then the basis for another person’s opinion and actions.
When you bring sexual orientation into the argument you then put oral and anal sex between men in to the formula and ask for an up or down vote.
The vote has been consistently No and will probably continue to be so. You may not like that fact but it is reality.
Typically those who want acceptance and tolerance by everyone else do not practice that same level of tolerance and acceptance they desire and expect.
Mike Protack
May 15, 2009 at 8:16 am
stoptaxing
The vote has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with preventing wrongheaded regulation of private individuals. Delawarepolitics.net addressed this well in the God bless Thurman Adams post.
May 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm
RSmitty
Delawarepolitics.net addressed this well in the God bless Thurman Adams post.
YOU addressed it. I know I am a member there, but I do not endorse your argument, DA.
To respond to you and to a part of Mike’s response:
If you have a law preventing discrimination based on identity we are all protected-everyone
Well, then, enforce it fully and equally. Since we can’t seem to do that, and we don’t, that’s why bills like HB5 become necessary. Are they legally layers on an existing foundation, by your argument, yes. But to further that, it’s working out to be the patching-layer over top of the gaping pothole that has formed in that foundation!
Now to turn directly towards Mike:
The actions you take are then the basis for another person’s opinion and actions.
So, what are you saying? That homosexuals brought the discrimination that they do in fact endure upon themselves, based on their lifestyle? Please, I am real curious to know what you meant with that statement, because that is the impression it left.
May 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm
delawarerepublican
Check out the equal protection clause of the constitution, it is very clear. It is indeed enforced every day when the case has merit.
Protection based on identity is simple and fair. Actions you pursue of your own volition are your responsibility. For instance, the majority of out Flight Attendants (male) are gay. No one should discriminate against them based on identity.
However, when it became routine for flight attendants to wear rainbow pins and having inappropriate conversations on the airplane with other make flight attendants they were disciplined. Of course they waived the discrimination flag and of course they lost because the discipline was based on actions not identity.
This argument borders on the ridiculous when some college campuses will not allow military recruiters on campus but allow and fund gay groups.
Mike Protack
May 15, 2009 at 2:07 pm
RSmitty
The example you gave where others are infringed upon is fine, provided any person, with absolutely no regard to any characteristic, would receive the same consequence for the action. Now, I don’t believe a rainbow pin is grounds for consequence, but lewd speech in that setting could certainly be open to consequence. I say that knowing that it does have consequence in your field for all violators. My stance is that it carries equal weight across the board, not more weight or less weight depending on the person.
May 15, 2009 at 6:31 pm
kavips
It is rather odd to see people discussing sex in superficial terms.. Its sex. So what…..
Talking about rainbow pins is irrelevant. What is relevant are those gays in Sussex County who but their balls on the back of their trailer hitches. Now that is gay.
Those flaunting their privates, are the real manly gays. And people like Mark Baker and Rich Collins who also frequent Sussex County, think that exposing their testicles like that is real cool…
Perhaps Adams should pass a law banning putting one’s balls on the back of their truck?
Since he won’t, we must assume it’s because he’s gay too… and his attempt to bottle up each gay rights bill is because he is worried about his secret coming out…
(Celia Cohen, I am not)……..
lol.