Delaware House Passes GLBT Civil Rights Bill

March 24, 2005

DOVER — A bill adding sexual orientation to Delaware's anti-discrimination protections is again headed to the Senate after clearing the House in a close vote Thursday - just as it did in 2001 and 2003.

The so-called gay rights bill may fare better this year in the Senate, where it died in committee in 2002 and last year - if you believe the bill's sponsor, Rep. William A. Oberle Jr., R-Beechers Lot.

The heavily amended version of House Bill 36 that passed the House 22-18 has deleted language the Senate previously found objectionable. Oberle hopes that's enough to win it a vote in the upper chamber.

I didn't ride in on a load of pumpkins. I understand there are philosophical objections and I understand the legislative process, Oberle said.

But the bill's status sounded anything but changed to Senate President Pro Tem Thurman Adams Jr., D-Bridgeville, who allowed the bill to stay buried in the Judiciary Committee last year.

Adams said he'd make no promises about whether he would bring it to a vote. He decides which committee gets the bill and Senate rules allow a chairman to hold it without a vote.

I've heard some people say it's a better bill than last time, and I've heard others say it's the same or worse, Adams said. I'm going to send it to a committee that will give it thorough consideration. I've got two weeks to think about it.

The General Assembly adjourned Thursday for a two-week break.

The bill would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in things such as housing, public accommodations, insurance and employment. It defines sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.

Oberle drafted House Bill 36 this year to address some of the criticisms that doomed its predecessor, House Bill 99. The bill states that it does not undermine the state's ban on gay marriage, or apply to religious groups, or alter the state's employment-at-will laws.

What I think we've done is take away the excuses they had for not acting on this before, Oberle said.Now they'll either need to come up with new excuses or bring it up for a vote.

Making changes

The bill endured further amending Thursday in nearly three hours of House debate.

Amendments deleted wording that the bill covered real or perceived discrimination, and added burdens of proof that are not applied to plaintiffs alleging discrimination based on sex, age, race or religion.

Reaction to the bill's passage was as pointed as the often-heated debate on 12 proposed amendments, half of which passed.

Now we can move forward, said George Meldrum, president of the Stonewall Democrats, which favors equal rights for gay people. This bill will pass eventually.

Mike Pierson of Haven, a gay, bisexual and transgendered group at the University of Delaware, said the bill is basically just an equality issue. We're just fighting for equality in our relationships, in our workplaces and in our lives.

Pierson said he sees the bill's passage as the first step to eventually overturning Delaware's Defense of Marriage Act, which bans gay marriage and civil unions.

That's why bill opponents, many of whom didn't appear for a House vote they considered preordained, will take the fight to the Senate.

We still believe it is part of the gay agenda, said the Rev. Richard Avant, pastor of Dover's Calvary Baptist Church. We're going to have to just pray and work on those who are involved in the committees to make sure it stays in committee.

Andrea Evans, chairwoman of the Delaware Family Foundation, called the House action a shame and said it could hurt the state economy if it passes the Senate and is signed by Gov. Ruth Ann Minner. The governor has been an advocate of the bill.

House Majority Leader Wayne A. Smith, R-Clair Manor, said he still fears that judges could read more into the law, saying it provides foundation for a equal-protection challenge to the state's marriage law.

The debate Thursday was often marked by shouting and interruptions, with House Speaker Terry Spence, R-Stratford, forced to chide Smith at one point for stepping over the line when he barked questions at some of Oberle's witnesses.

Evans said she wonders why the General Assembly has even taken up such a divisive issue.

There's no documentation of a problem with sexual-orientation discrimination, she said. So why create a legal remedy for something that has not been a problem?