R.I. same-sex marriage bill packs the halls
By Katherine Gregg and TOM MOONEY
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE. (Sorry. Couldn’t get it over here.)
PROVIDENCE — The same-sex marriage debate played out at high volume at the State House on Wednesday, with advocates waving “vote for love” signs, and opponents arguing that nothing less than the soul of Rhode Island, the well-being of its children and the “sanctity of marriage” are at stake in a year when the state’s new governor and openly gay House speaker are enthusiastically backing gay nuptials.
From a news conference to a rally to a lengthy House Judiciary Committee hearing, the arguments for and against same-sex marriage raged with so many people packing the marble stairs and hallways, the Capitol Police, in a rare but not unprecedented move, temporarily closed off the Smith Street entrance to the State House.
“We’re more hopeful than ever,” said Kim Stowell, spokeswoman for Marriage Equality Rhode Island, as more than 200 people crowded into the rotunda, and a crowd of equal size was restrained outside. “Times are changing. Everyone knows a gay person today. It’s harder to say gay people can’t get married when you are talking about someone you know.”
A smaller group of people opposed to gay marriage took up their own posts in the crowd, with small blue signs that showed a math equation of “1 man + 1 woman = marriage.”
Among them was Adam Jaquith, 28, of Woonsocket, who said he was here because “I’m a Christian man. I believe that God loves everyone. I have gay friends, but I believe that God has made it one man for one woman for marriage.”
Same-gender marriage is already legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, and was allowed in Maine until voters overturned the state Legislature’s approval of same-sex nuptials. In Rhode Island, it has been proposed every year since former state Rep. Michael Pisaturo, D-Cranston, introduced the first same-sex marriage bill in 1997.
While no vote was taken, Wednesday night’s hours-long hearing may have set the stage for Rhode Island’s own lawmakers to finally decide where they stand.
In a written statement to the committee, Governor Chafee said: “I support the Marriage Equality Act as a matter of fundamental fairness.
“In 1967, the United States Supreme Court held that ‘the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ Today, same-sex couples — loving, productive and valued members of our community — are not free to exercise this right in Rhode Island. They are not free to form a public social contract that all agree promotes family stability and provides social, financial and legal benefits to its participants.
“This is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to anyone else. When we deprive gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders of the freedom to marry, we not only deny them a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, we also diminish the freedom and liberty of all Rhode Islanders,” Chafee wrote. Lt. Governor Elizabeth H. Roberts conveyed her own support in person.
In her turn at the microphone, Rhode Island Bar Association President Lise M. Iwon recited a sampling of the legal obstacles that, she said, the same-sex couples who are her clients face, despite her efforts to craft legal agreements that cover every financial and medical possibility.
Those opposing same-sex marriage Wednesday included Austin R. Nimocks, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, left; Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, with The Ruth Institute; and Christopher Plante, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island.
“Clients spend thousands of dollars on wills, estate planning, relationship agreements, powers of attorney, adoptions and other documents trying to plan for every eventuality, every tragedy, every mundane circumstance,” she said. “But no matter how many or what safety nets I try to help them put in place, there is simply no way to provide them with the full scope of protections they would automatically receive if we were able to marry.”
And “because we cannot marry,” she said, gay and lesbian couples who conceive a child via artificial insemination “must incur enormous financial expense and emotional stress of having the second parent adopt the child,” including “criminal background checks, a six-month waiting period, a home study and adoption hearing.”
Mark Goldberg, who led the 2009 battle for a law allowing same-sex partners to make funeral decisions for each other, came to the hearing with a very different argument for allowing gays and lesbians to marry. “In addition to being the right thing to do, passing this law could have an economic benefit to the state,” he argued in written testimony.
He explained: “Being a gay man, which often equates to good taste, I am going to hire only the finest caterers, florists, venue and entertainment. I can easily find the best of the best, right here in R.I. Imagine a whole new set of prospective clients to the many businesses here in our state pumping money into the economy.”
But opponents from as far away as California, and as near as the Catholic Diocese of Providence and the Congdon Street Baptist Church, disputed the contention that the fight for same-sex marriage is akin to the battle by blacks for civil rights.
Leading off their news conference was state Sen. Harold Metts, D-Providence, a black man, who said “many in my community do not think that what people do in the bedroom, the privacy of their bedroom, is civil rights.”
Lexxis Dourado, of East Providence, left, and Diamond Person, right, both 13-year-old students at Martin Middle School, show their support for same-sex marriage. Providence Journal photos / Connie Grosch
Loading ...
Marriage discriminators are either ill-informed, ignorant or dishonest. Suggesting that marriage rights is about what a couple does in its bedroom is ridiculous. Gay people already have equal rights in sexual expression, thanks to the 2003 Supreme Court decision. What they want is equal rights in protecting their relationships. Don’t make this complicated, people! It’s not!
“Leading off their news conference was state Sen. Harold Metts, D-Providence, a black man, who said “many in my community do not think that what people do in the bedroom, the privacy of their bedroom, is civil rights.””
If what someone does in the privacy of their own home is NOT a civil right than what is? Should we restrict people to a kosher kitchen? Do we storm a house who is watching Fox news? The very Constitution of these United States speak to the sanctity of the home.
This is a really interesting perspective for the Ruth Institute to take — if I didn’t know any better, I would think the author of this post supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The majority of the piece provides different perspectives on supporting marriage equality, from the well-respected governor and former long-time senator Lincoln Chafee to the state’s Bar Association President to an economic argument for allowing gays to wed all the way through to the picture of a pair of young women showing their support for equality.
Thank you, Ruth Institute, for providing such a fair interpretation of the proceedings.
Your right, Emma, this is a remarkably fair account for NOM/TRI! It does point out some of the reasons that support equal access to marriage for gay people. Well done, TRI!
“Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.
But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.”
NOM keeps fact-checking organizations working overtime with its lies. Yikes. What people will do to earn a living.
Be aware, everyone, of the great lie that is now (in RI) and was(Maine) spread by NOM and the Catholic Church. As a teacher (34 years) in public education, I can assure you that gay sex let alone marriage for anyone is not taught in our public schools. But don’t just count on my word: In 2009 NOM crept into Maine, under the cover of darkness, and hopped into bed with the Catholic Diocese of Maine and then spread malicious lies and threats that marriage equality would lead to the corruption of Maine’s children. Maine’s own Commissioner of Education and its Attorney General held a news conference to address this vicious rumor. Their message was clear; there was absolutely no truth to the lie and no plans to change the state curriculum. But the damage was done. The lie won the day and the Catholic Church and NOM crawled back behind their facades of propriety with their finger stuck firmly in their cheek. It was reprehensible but the backlash has taken its toll. The Church has suffered greatly for its sins and NOM is still under attack for poisoning the inherent goodness and fair play of decent Maine people and refusing to reveal the outsiders (and insiders: Diocese of Maine) who put up great sums to prostitute their cause. Beware Rhode Island. Be vigilant Rhode Island. NOM and the Catholic Church care nothing for you.
Fighting marriage equality is a business, and NOM wants to get rich it seems. Personally, I can’t imagine running a business that hurts children but NOM’s business does. Unspeakably shocking.
There is no justification for special treatment based on gay identity. None. But that is what the demand for SSM is, as per the unmistakagle messaging of the pro-SSM crowd at this event.
@Chairm
No, what SSM supporters want are the same rights as OSM. There is EVERY justification for EQUAL treatment.