Rhode Island Governor Swings to the Dark Side
What is it with these New England states with their Republican governors? Rhode Island, I'm talking about. New England Cable News:
Okay, this is bad. The National Organization for Marriage is an anti-gay group that was involved in the Proposition 8 campaign in California. If you want to see some top-dollar hate propaganda, click HERE. Read the HRC's takedown of the ad HERE, breaking it apart lie by lie.
I don't know what "New England Cable News" is, but I have to question wording that describes the National Organization for Marriage as "a national defense of marriage organization." For one, marriage doesn't need any defense, nobody's attacking it and it's doing just fine. For another thing, the group doesn't defend marriage, it opposes certain marriages. The group is best described as an "anti-gay" group, at least that's more objective, and I don't think anybody would disagree with that characterization.
Democrats have majorities in the Rhode Island state House and Senate, as you would expect, but not supermajorities that can override a veto. So somehow the people over there in that little state put this nut in the governor's seat, and he can veto legislation that has been passed by majorities in two houses.
Skipping down, something familiar:
The way the anti-gay forces like to put these things up to a popular vote shows a basic failure to understand how our system of government works. The point in America is not that everybody should do what the majority wants them to do, the point is that everybody should be free.
(NECN: Brad Puffer, Providence, RI) - One day after Vermont approved gay marriage, Rhode Island's governor is speaking out against similar efforts in his state. Governor Donald Carcieri is now lending his support to a national organization and a new ad campaign.
A national defense of marriage organization is launching a new ad campaign in Rhode Island, just a day after Vermont became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage.
"We are not naive about the momentum that is being gained we are not conceding anything," says Christopher Plante of National Organization for Marriage.
Rhode Island is the only New England state not to recognize either gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships. Governor Don Carcieri, and his wife, joined a news conference to make it clear they believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Here in Rhode Island there are two bills currently working their way through the legislature that would legalize gay marriage.
But clearly, they do not have the governor's support.
"What I don't want to see happen with this issue is what's happening is courts deciding things or legislatures deciding things this is such an important issue I think its should be put to the voters," says Carcieri. Carcieri denounces gay marriage
Okay, this is bad. The National Organization for Marriage is an anti-gay group that was involved in the Proposition 8 campaign in California. If you want to see some top-dollar hate propaganda, click HERE. Read the HRC's takedown of the ad HERE, breaking it apart lie by lie.
I don't know what "New England Cable News" is, but I have to question wording that describes the National Organization for Marriage as "a national defense of marriage organization." For one, marriage doesn't need any defense, nobody's attacking it and it's doing just fine. For another thing, the group doesn't defend marriage, it opposes certain marriages. The group is best described as an "anti-gay" group, at least that's more objective, and I don't think anybody would disagree with that characterization.
Democrats have majorities in the Rhode Island state House and Senate, as you would expect, but not supermajorities that can override a veto. So somehow the people over there in that little state put this nut in the governor's seat, and he can veto legislation that has been passed by majorities in two houses.
Skipping down, something familiar:
The governor would like to see a referendum on the 2010 ballot. Meanwhile, the legislature is looking at several compromise bills that would create benefits for same sex couples short of full marriage rights.
The way the anti-gay forces like to put these things up to a popular vote shows a basic failure to understand how our system of government works. The point in America is not that everybody should do what the majority wants them to do, the point is that everybody should be free.
posted by JimK at 8:40 AM
37 Comments:
The article this blog links to included this quote: "Heterosexual marriages see their rights threatened here and the National Organization for Marriage is here to defend those," says Christopher Plante.
This comment triggered a discussion between me and Uncle Beau. We are in the 29th year of our own heterosexual marriage and do not see our rights threatened in any way by allowing our LGBT friends to marry one another. We do not see a threat to our marriage by the large number of heterosexual divorces, either. We can only imagine that any heterosexual couples who do feel threatened by marriage equality must have other issues.
Andrea- not anon
yup, I agree with Aunt Bea and Uncle Beau. I don't see how my marriage is threatened by the marriage or divorce of anyone-gay or straight. Ok- not totally true- I am concerned that if Hugh Jackman divorced his wife and came to me and begged me to be his, it might cause a problem. Aside from that, my rights and my marriage are not threatened by laws allowing others to marry.
"Heterosexual marriages see their rights threatened here"
How? If your spouse is going to leave you because same-sex marriage is suddenly legal your marriage wasn't worth squat to begin with. Keeping them bound to you by banning same-sex marriage is not the way to go.
If you're so insecure about your supposed "supremacy" as a heterosexual that giving same-sex couples equal rights would damage your feelings you should consult a therapist, not seek oppressive legislation against gay people.
Same-sex marriage will not cause heterosexuals to divorce, eat their children or suddenly decide they have romantic feelings for their furniture. Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and other nations have had SSM for some time and none of those places have had outbreaks of Man-on-furniture matrimony.
The only thing that's truly threatened is the heterosupremacy of certain straight people. They need to get over it.
Buffy concluded:
“The only thing that's truly threatened is the heterosupremacy of certain straight people. They need to get over it.”
Hmmm… I wonder if there is a “reparative therapy” for that.
I hope everyone had a Hoppy Easter! ;)
Cynthia
"Heterosexual marriages see their rights threatened here"
The only things that threaten heterosexual marriage are the gross infidelity rampant amongst heterosexual married couples, the appalling,horrendous, and destructive divorce rate, the shear hypocracy of so-called "church sanctioned" unions that supposedly give support to "family values", and the inability of too many heterosexuals to adhere to the concept of monogomy, rendered meaningliess by their disgraceful behaviours. Are the "rights" they so ardently advocate and seek to "protect" the continuation of these family-destroying behaviours?
As a gay individual, I am not particularly enamored of the efforts of the gay community to buy into these behaviours, but I do believe that, as citizens of the United States, gays and lesbians are entitled to exactly the same rights, protected by law, as every other citizen.
One would like to think that heterosexual opponents of gay marriage ought to clean up the mess in their own homes before they so sanctimoniously cast aspersions on the efforts of gays and lesbians to achieve the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens.
Citizen
Sorry Citizen that your parents must have divorced and you are bitter towards heterosexual marriage.
let's all thank svelte cynthia, who was able to concoct a post of less than three thousand lines today
"Anonymous"...you are WRONG. My parents were not divorced. What repulses me is your hypocracy! I am not at all bitter toward heterosexual marriage..it's ok in the few cases where it works.
Citizen
yes, we can tell you're not bitter, citizen
No rebuttal, just a couple of personal attacks against Citizen and Cynthia. What a way to celebrate the wee hours after Easter.
We see who is bitter, that's for sure.
as opposed to your comment,you crazy old bat
"Anonymous" - Your continued attacks against Aunt Bea are mere childishness. Time to stop now, or you will have to go to your "time-out" room!
and the crazy old bat's attacks against me are what?
you've got a chicken-egg problem, pal
It's ironic when anonymous claims other people are mean to him.
It's worth noting that people were having an interesting discussion before he dropped his electronic poison into the pot.
rrjr
So let's get the conversation back on track. Here's a recent Letter to the Editor in the Washington Post. The writer agrees that other people's marriages do not threaten your own.
Advancing Marriage Equality
Thursday, April 9, 2009; A16
I am looking forward to the day when I can tell my children stories about how in the past gay couples were not allowed to marry and watch them laugh or gasp at the ludicrousness of denying a basic right to U.S. citizens for no good reason.
My own marriage, which I treasure as an endless source of love and strength, seems somehow diminished when other loving couples are told they are unworthy of the institution.
Marriage equality is, quite simply, a civil rights battle, and I suspect that one day oppositionists will feel great shame for having stood in the reception hall door.
Kudos to Vermont and the District for being the latest to move equal rights forward ["D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Gay Nuptials Elsewhere," front page, April 8].
CARRIE D. WOLINETZ
Silver Spring
Maybe barryo or Orin can tell us how they imagine marriage equality undermines their marriages.
Compare that progressive Montgomery County resident to this sad news. Robyn Gibson filed for divorce after 28 years and seven children. Apparently, Mel Gibson is a bit too passionate at times.
Robyn filed for divorce a few months after California approved Prop 8 and outlawed marriage equality rights for all, so I guess Mel won't be blaming marriage equality for his own marriage's failure.
what do you think, Robert
was that a personal attack by the crazy old bat?
Why don't you tell us what **you** think, barryo?
Do you think I was personally attacking someone by reporting news of another Hollywood divorce? If so, who do you think I was attacking?
You have referred to me as a "crazy old bat" three times in this thread alone. Do you think you are personally attacking me each time you refer to me in that way? Do you think calling me that is a valid way to rebut an argument?
Let's hear it for Meghan McCain!!
She's posted an interesting column over at the Daily Beast today called Memo to the GOP: Go Gay: Republican resistance to gay marriage goes against conservative values—and our own self-interests.
Excerpt:
...Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—“All men are created equal.” If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn't just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it's un-American.
At the end of the day, speaking at the Log Cabin Republicans' convention isn’t just about reaching out to the gay community—although I believe doing so is vital to the future success of the party. It’s also about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside. That more and more people are discussing gay rights speaks positively for the millions of young and progressive Republicans waiting for our party to return to its roots. Personal freedoms are what makes this country the greatest country in the world. And just like the civil-rights and feminist movements before this, the movement toward gay equality and gay marriage is one I have absolute faith will triumph over prejudices....
"Anonymous"
First of all, I am not your pal! Secondly, how do you characterize this crude, infantile attack on Aunt Bea ("was that a personal attack by the crazy old bat?") when you were responding to a comment by Robert?
You are a crude, ignorant individual who needs to be spanked before being sent to your "time-out" room!
Crazy old battery speaks for itself.
By comparing me to Barry O, the worst President like, ever, Aunt Daffy insults me all the time.
She cornered the market on insults, tapping on her laptop in her belfry.
Ding Dong!
yeah, pal!
Oh poor babyo!
there's a direct attack on my "sweet as a baby" nature!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim writes,
The way the anti-gay forces like to put these things up to a popular vote shows a basic failure to understand how our system of government works. The point in America is not that everybody should do what the majority wants them to do, the point is that everybody should be free.Actually Jim, we do understand how our system of government works; majority rules with minority rights. Gays and lesbians are free to live as they wish...they can and do purchase homes, cars and take vacations together...they hold down every sort of job one can do, everything from bank teller to school teacher to high end chip designer, not to mention everything else. And gays and lesbians have every right to take all the steps needed to make certain that the life they have chosen is not intruded upon by those with their own idea of how they should live.
With all of that said, what gays, lesbians and those that support them may not do is redefine a social institution, marriage. It serves a purpose and that purpose defines the limits of this social institution.
And Meghan McCain can prattle on about how us so-called Troglodytes need to get with the times...charming. I have news for Miss McCain: the moment the Republican Party takes such advice will be the day they forever lose my vote for any GOP candidate, period. I know for a fact that other social conservatives think along the same line.
what gays, lesbians and those that support them may not do is redefine a social institution, marriage. It serves a purpose and that purpose defines the limits of this social institution.What "purpose" of the institution of marriage is lost by allowing gays to marry too?
Anon complained:
“there's a direct attack on my "sweet as a baby" nature!”
OMG! Someone made a PERSONAL ATTACK on someone named ANONYMOUS! What a wonderful oxymoron! :D No, no Anon, they were attacking the OTHER Anon! Please excuse me while I ROFL. :D :D :D
Orin argued:
“With all of that said, what gays, lesbians and those that support them may not do is redefine a social institution, marriage. It serves a purpose and that purpose defines the limits of this social institution.”
Marriage is also a legal institution, with a number of legal benefits associated with it that help families in our society function. Gay and lesbian families, especially those with children, deserve the same protections and benefits. Those children should not be denied the benefit of two loving parents just because some folks have appointed themselves to as the gatekeeper to marriage. Especially when some of those kids have been adopted from heterosexuals who decided not to marry and raise the child they created.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Orin, it makes me so sad that you can't see this is a matter of equality for you lgbt brothers and sisters. Having said that, I know that for some reason many Americans who feel lgbt people should have the same protection under law agree with you, that marriage should be restricted to opposite-gender couples.
I wonder if that is because most of the weddings most people have been to have been opposite-gender nuptials in a house of worship (even for people who are far from religious). Many people see religion as being opposed to queer people.
"Many people see religion as being opposed to queer people."
Queer people are opposed to queer people. That's why they're always trying to hurt themselves and each other.
Research needs to be conducted into finding a reliable reparative therapy.
Huh? "Queer people are opposed to queer people. That's why they're always trying to hurt themselves and each other."
That is indeed cryptic and enigmatic, "Anonymous". I guess when you have nothing else of merit to contribute in a discussion of GLBT rights, you can always fall back on some sort of idiotic comment such as this. Sad
sado-masochism is a deep thread in gay culture
sado-masochism is a deep thread in gay culture
Thanks for sharing your thought with us. Is that why you come here day after day and make personal attacks on the regulars here?
I've got news for you, S&M is a pretty deep thread in straight culture, too.
Googling for "BDSM, gay" yields 458,000 hits
Googling for "BDSM, straight" yields 5,140,000 hits
Don't know what this all means but here's some other searches:
BDSM Obama 1,150,000 hits
BDSM Aunt 520,000
BDSM TTF 16,800
BDSM Aunt Bea 7,500
btw, when I did BDMS gay, I get 1,500,000 hits
BDSM Bush = 2,280,000
Robert writes,
Orin, it makes me so sad that you can't see this is a matter of equality for you lgbt brothers and sisters.That is because I know this is not an issue of equality; rather this is an issue of obtaining and then using the levers of the State to persuade, coerce, and failing those two approaches, FORCE acceptance of the viewpoint that a sexual deviation involving 2 to 4% of population is just as good as how the other 96 to 98% live. I have been told point blank by homosexual activists that once same-sex marriage is the law of the land they will make it their mission to make legal and political war on churches that do not agree with them just as they have done with the Boy Scouts.
Having said that, I know that for some reason many Americans who feel lgbt people should have the same protection under law agree with you, that marriage should be restricted to opposite-gender couples.You speak the truth, Robert...many Americans, myself included, have family members, friends, co-workers, and even fellow worshipers that are gay or lesbian. My gay and lesbian friends are as welcome into my home as are my straight ones - and yes, they know that I oppose same-sex "marriage" and we simply agree to disagree as our friendship and association means so much more to us.
So how does this division manifest itself in the area of public policy? By the American public becoming more accepting of family, friends, co-workers, etc that are gay/lesbian, while still affirming that one social institution ought to remain heterosexual: marriage. Still, many are conflicted about this and at times feel that this is unfair. How societies are structured can not be based on something as whimsical as how one feels; rather, it must be done upon the basis of how one thinks.
I know, I know...what do we want? Equality! When do we want it? Now! Unfortunately what is not reflected in such a reductionist view of equality is any sort of appreciation for competing goods, such as freedom, or more accurately described as ordered liberty. Alexis de Toqueville probably said it best, "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
I wonder if that is because most of the weddings most people have been to have been opposite-gender nuptials in a house of worship (even for people who are far from religious). Many people see religion as being opposed to queer people.Alas I suspect for too many people this is about all they know about marriage, so I think your wondering has merit. I say alas because as I have read and studied this issue I have discovered so much more to this issue than any sort of narrowing religious dogmatism. The LDS are a good example of this...they know what their church teaches with regards to marriage, yet it is heavily laden with very narrow sectarian arguments that could not gain wide spread public support (their Proclamation on the Family, while well intended, is a miasma of LDS theology). Still, strong arguments exist for continuing to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and for those that are curious all that needs to be done is look (sorry, it is late and I have work tomorrow - and besides, I am not going to re-invent any wheel tonite).
As for churches being opposed to homosexuals...hummm, well if that means asserting their sexual identity in a manner that appears to demand recognition and acceptance then I guess that many churches are opposed to homosexuals. What I have noticed though at the Catholic parish I attend is that there are at least two homosexual couples in the parish I attend, and they are among the most active and involved in the parish.
Thank you Robert for your thoughtful and insightful remarks.
Post a Comment
<< Home