
A proposed amendment to enshrine the right to marry, regardless of the spouses’ gender, in the Delaware Constitution failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to pass the House of Representatives.
The proposed amendment, sponsored by State Sen. Russ Huxtable (D-Lewes), passed the State Senate on a 16-5 vote on June 10. It marked the first step in the lengthy process of amending the constitution to declare that marriage is “a fundamental right that may not be denied or abridged on the basis of gender,” as well as race, color, national origin, or sex.
The change would require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law, including with respect to inheritance, medical decision-making, child custody, and other rights afforded to married couples and their children.
The amendment also clarified that the right to marry would not infringe on the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Delaware Constitution.
But despite easily passing the Senate, the amendment fell three votes short of the 28 needed to secure a two-thirds majority in the House.
Only 25 Democrats voted for the amendment, prompting State Rep. Claire Snyder-Hall (D-Rehoboth Beach), the lead House sponsor, to switch her vote to “no,” preserving her ability to bring the measure back for reconsideration. The final vote was 24-3, with 14 members not voting.
Most House Republicans were among the lawmakers who abstained. State Rep. Mike Smith (R-Pike Creek) said he was speaking for much of his caucus in arguing that Delaware law already allows any two consenting adults to marry.
“This is just restating rights that have already been protected under Delaware law. It’s important for constituents to know that,” he said.
Snyder-Hall called the vote “deeply disappointing.”
“The General Assembly turned its back on the people of this state,” she said. “Every Delawarean deserves the right to marry the person they love, regardless of race or gender.”
The push to enshrine marriage equality in the state constitution is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion access nationwide.
Since the fall of Roe, abortion rights advocates have sought to enshrine protections for reproductive rights and medical privacy into law, including through state constitutional amendments. LGBTQ advocates have warned that the court could one day overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.
State Rep. Josué Ortega (D-West Wilmington), the only other Democrat besides Snyder-Hall to vote “no,” told WHYY he opposed permanently enshrining same-sex marriage rights in the constitution after hearing from constituents who opposed the measure.
But Snyder-Hall argued that the amendment should not be controversial because it applies only to civil marriage, not religious ceremonies.
“It does not tell any church, synagogue or mosque what constitutes religious marriage,” she said.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.