This week marked the first week legislators were fully back in Dover after more than a month of Joint Finance Committee hearings. During that time, legislators were focused entirely on budget discussions, with none of the usual bills being worked.
But now that the General Assembly has shifted back into its regular rhythm, things are moving quickly again. Wednesday’s committee day alone saw a large number of bills heard across several committees.
Out of all of those, there were three bills in particular that deserve a closer look.
Let’s start with HB 265.
HB 265 deals with sexual offenses, but it also touches other crimes connected to those situations. The bill provides limited criminal immunity for individuals who report a sexual offense if they themselves were involved in certain low-level crimes at the time.
The idea behind the bill is to remove barriers that might keep someone from reporting a sexual assault. For example, if someone was underage and drinking, or present where drugs were involved, the fear of being charged with those minor offenses could prevent them from reporting what happened.
HB 265 would allow someone in that position to report the crime without facing prosecution for those specific low-level offenses. The immunity does not apply to serious crimes—it is limited to things like possession or underage alcohol violations.
But there’s another side to this conversation.
Law enforcement already has significant discretion when it comes to handling these kinds of situations. Prosecutors and police regularly make judgment calls in order to prioritize the reporting and investigation of more serious crimes. It’s not uncommon for law enforcement to offer some level of leniency, immunity, or reduced charges in exchange for cooperation or testimony when reporting a crime.
That flexibility allows investigators to respond to each situation based on its specific circumstances.
HB 265, however, moves that discretion out of the hands of law enforcement and into statute, mandating immunity in certain cases rather than allowing officers and prosecutors to evaluate each case individually. Because of that, the bill can be seen less as removing barriers to reporting and more as an overreach that limits the ability of law enforcement to do their job using professional judgment.
HB 265 passed the House Judiciary Committee and has been placed on the House Ready List, meaning it could be scheduled for a vote on the House floor at any time.
Next is HB 188, which deals with Delaware’s primary elections.
Delaware currently has a closed primary system, meaning that only registered Democrats can vote in Democratic primaries and only registered Republicans can vote in Republican primaries.
HB 188 would create what’s called a semi-open primary. Under this system, voters who are registered as Independents or unaffiliated voters would be allowed to choose one party’s primary ballot and participate in that primary election.
Supporters argue this would give independent voters more participation in the political process.
But critics point out that it changes the purpose of primaries. Party primaries act as a way for party members to choose their own candidate, not necessarily for voters outside the party to influence that selection.
Across the country, states handle this issue very differently. Roughly 15 states currently use closed primaries, similar to Delaware’s current system. About 14 states operate with semi-open or semi-closed systems, where unaffiliated voters can participate in one party’s primary. And around 20 states use fully open primaries, where any voter can choose which primary to vote in regardless of party registration.
So HB 188 would move Delaware away from its current closed system and place it among the more than a dozen other states that allow independent voters to participate in party primaries.
HB 188 was also placed on the House Ready List.
Now we come to the bill that sparked the most discussion, Senate substitute 2 for SB 100, a proposed amendment to the Delaware constitution.
SS 1 for SB 100 seeks to change the constitutional framework for how marriage is recognized in Delaware.
Let’s start off by saying that the foundational point for understanding marriage is very simple: God created marriage. Scripture tells us that marriage was established between one man and one woman, a covenant designed not only for companionship but also for the stability of family and society.
Throughout history, humanity has repeatedly attempted to redefine what God created. Same-sex marriage is one modern example of that redefinition. Delaware legalized what is known as “same-sex marriage” in 2013, two years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. But SB 100 is not even just about trying to affirm the 2013 marriage bill or Obergefell.
It goes further.
The constitutional amendment states that all marriages that are “legally valid” must be treated equally under the law. At first glance, that phrase might sound harmless. But constitutional language must be read carefully—because once it is embedded into a constitution, it becomes much harder to undo.
The phrase “legally valid marriages” creates a loophole that could allow the definition of marriage to expand indefinitely and receive constitutional level protections with each change.
A good example of how that might work comes from HB 8, a bill introduced earlier this session that proposed recognizing marriages between first cousins if those marriages were legally performed in another jurisdiction.
HB 8 did not require Delaware to perform those marriages—it only proposed recognizing them.
But if SB 100 were part of the constitution, that distinction would disappear. If Delaware law recognizes a marriage as legally valid, the constitution would require it to be treated the same as every other marriage—including potentially being performed here as well.
Representative Dukes raised this concern directly in the committee hearing.
However, when the question was posed to the House Majority attorney, the explanation given essentially repeated the same point without addressing the implications.
Majority Leader Harris attempted to clarify the discussion by using the example that same-sex marriages must be treated the same as heterosexual marriages. The attorney confirmed that—but ironically, that confirmation proves the underlying concern. If two types of marriages are considered legally valid, they must be treated equally under the constitution.
That means that if a future legislature expands the definition of marriage—even in ways society currently rejects—those marriages could receive constitutional-level protection without going through the full constitutional amendment process.
For the sake of argument here, let’s give an example. In certain parts of the world, marriage to someone that’s underage, let’s say under 16 is allowed. If Delaware decided to recognize tha marriage simply because it was performed in a jurisdiction where it is legal, SB 100 would say, “No, that’s not enough. Not only must we recognize this marriage of a 12 yr old to a fully adult male, we must also perform it; because, all marriages under the constitution that are legally valid, must be treated equally.”
Let’s remember also that amending the Delaware Constitution is intentionally difficult. It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers in two consecutive legislative sessions. So these marriages receiving constitutional protections without going through the full constitutional amendment poses an issue. The process that exists to prevent major constitutional changes from happening quickly or carelessly. Yet SB 100 could allow sweeping changes to occur through ordinary legislation requiring only a simple majority vote.
During the hearing, Speaker Minor-Brown responded to the cousin-marriage example by saying the legislature did not pass HB 8 because of health concerns related to close biological relationships.
That may be true—but it still does not answer the legal question being raised. The concern is not about what this legislature would do today. The concern is about what future legislatures might do tomorrow, once the constitutional language has already been written.
Unfortunately, Representative Dukes’ question was never directly answered. Instead, the discussion continued to circle around in a way that only muddied the waters further.
It was also argued that marriage should always be about “love and commitment” between consenting adults. But broad language like that is exactly what leads to continual redefinitions. If love and consent alone define marriage, then the category itself becomes endlessly flexible.
From a Biblical worldview, marriage is not simply about feelings or even personal commitment. It is a created institution, designed by God with specific boundaries for the good of society and the flourishing of families. When those boundaries are removed, the definition does not stabilize—it continues to shift.
Despite the concerns raised during the hearing, SB 100 passed out of committee and has now been placed on the House Ready List. As a Senate bill, this stop to the House Floor coming up will be the last chance to stop it in its tracks. You will want to watch that Session for sure.
Looking ahead to next week, we are also watching a new bill: HB 300.
HB 300 would create a statewide Title IX Coordinator position, responsible for overseeing compliance with federal Title IX guidance in K-12 athletics.
At first glance, that may sound administrative. But Title IX is currently at the center of intense national debate—particularly around fairness in girls’ sports. Centralizing authority in a single coordinator could create conflicts with legislation like SB 215, which seeks to protect girls’ sports by ensuring that biological males do not compete in female athletic categories.
One major concern is that HB 300 does not currently explain how this coordinator would be selected or provide nonambiguously written standards to guide that role—which is especially important given the stakes involved. HB 300 will be heard Wednesday, March 18th in the House Education Committee, and we’ll be watching closely to see how legislators discuss the issue.
Because how they talk about it will tell us a lot about how we should prepare moving forward.
And that brings us to something important. Speaking about these issues from a Biblical worldview takes courage. Often, it is the least welcome perspective in the room. But Scripture reminds us that truth is not measured by popularity. In Joshua 1:9 we are told:
“Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”
What exactly does courage look like in an intense discouraging culture and how can Christians stand firmly for truth while still engaging with wisdom, clarity, and conviction?
Because the times we live in do not simply require awareness.
They require courage.