Summary: HB 36 expands Delaware’s non-discrimination laws by incorporating recent changes to the legal definition of sexual orientation, specifically the inclusion of “pansexual” and “asexual” from HB 275 (2024). While framed as a technical update, the bill is critiqued as part of a broader cultural shift toward subjective identity definitions, raising concerns about legal instability and the erosion of biologically grounded understandings of sex and identity.

Analysis: In 2024, Rep. Morrison edited the definition for sexual orientation as it exists in DelCode to include ‘pansexual’ and ‘asexual.’ HB 36 adds those additions to sexual orientation to Delaware’s nondiscrimination laws.

HB 36 expands Delaware’s non-discrimination laws by adding in the updated versions of sexual orientation as created with HB 275 (2024). That bill added in asexual and pansexual to this definition, and now, HB 36 seeks to weave those additions into the rest of the state’s non-discrimination laws.

At first glance, this might seem like a simple update. But it’s part of a much larger shift—a movement that increasingly defines human identity by subjective self-perception, not by objective truth grounded in biology and design.

This emphasis on radical personal autonomy has accelerated since the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). That ruling redefined marriage and, in doing so, cracked open the door for many of the identity debates we’re seeing today. Since then, legal challenges across the country have pushed to enshrine additional identity categories as protected classes under civil rights laws.

But sexual identity isn’t something we construct or redefine—it’s a gift from God.  “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).

During last year’s House committee hearing on this issue, I asked a simple but important question: Where will it end? This question met much backlash from committee members, but yet remains unanswered. 

If we keep adding more categories to the definition of sexual orientation, how many will there be next year? And the year after that? At what point do we recognize that this endless reshaping of law to accommodate subjective identities leads to instability and confusion? Our laws are meant to serve and protect people, but they can’t do that well if they’re constantly being rewritten to reflect every cultural whim.