RI civil union compromise wins little support

May 11, 2011 Full story: KansasCity.com 20

Civil unions may make for good legislative compromise in Rhode Island's gay marriage debate, but the proposal won nothing but scorn during a public hearing at the Statehouse on Wednesday.Gay marriage supporters told lawmakers that civil unions treat gay couples as second-class citizens.

Full Story

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2 May 11, 2011
If it makes the religious right happy ( and Frank too) I'm all for civil unions. But then there's that Federal DOMA law.

Civil Unions are BS
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#3 May 11, 2011
DNF wrote:
If it makes the religious right happy ( and Frank too) I'm all for civil unions. But then there's that Federal DOMA law.
Civil Unions are BS
DOMA is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 May 11, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional.
That is still undecided as far as the courts and Congress. what have you done to repeal it?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#5 May 11, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA is OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional.
And who in Congress have the Libertarians decided will change that?

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Silver Spring, MD

#6 May 11, 2011
Of course civil unions are BS, but they are a useful stepping stone to marriage equality. In fact, they should have been pursued nationwide prior to starting the campaign for marriage equality.

This fact is why the misogynist, authoritarian RCC is opposing civil unions in RI. If those sexually disordered bigots oppose it, it must have some use to us in the short term.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#7 May 11, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
Of course civil unions are BS, but they are a useful stepping stone to marriage equality. In fact, they should have been pursued nationwide prior to starting the campaign for marriage equality.
This fact is why the misogynist, authoritarian RCC is opposing civil unions in RI. If those sexually disordered bigots oppose it, it must have some use to us in the short term.
Thank you. You just confirmed the rationale of the Conservative Religious right. C.U. open the door for the downfall of marriage.

Expect a congratulatory e-mail from Maggie Galleger.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#8 May 11, 2011
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And who in Congress have the Libertarians decided will change that?
SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional in the near future.

How's that hopey-changey thing workin out fer ya ?

:)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 May 12, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional in the near future.
How's that hopey-changey thing workin out fer ya ?
:)
Hate Crimes Bill passed that includes gays and lesbians. The eminent repeal of DADTDP.

I could ask you the same thing about your voting records. How's that hopey-changey thing workin out fer ya ?

as Charlie Feather pointed out, that was a reply, not an answer to the question.

Try to keep up

Perhaps your pussies can help you. I'm sure they are as good at logarithms as Disclosure2000's cats are.

BTW I read Tarot cards. SCOTUS will do what it did in the Nelson v Baker decision. It will decline to take the case claiming it isn't a federal issue.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#10 May 12, 2011
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Hate Crimes Bill passed that includes gays and lesbians. The eminent repeal of DADTDP.
I could ask you the same thing about your voting records. How's that hopey-changey thing workin out fer ya ?
as Charlie Feather pointed out, that was a reply, not an answer to the question.
Try to keep up
Perhaps your pussies can help you. I'm sure they are as good at logarithms as Disclosure2000's cats are.
BTW I read Tarot cards. SCOTUS will do what it did in the Nelson v Baker decision. It will decline to take the case claiming it isn't a federal issue.
It's CLEARLY a federal issue. DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and Artivle V.'s "full faith and credit" clause.

And failing a SCOTUS ruling that it is indeed unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia even says it "probably" is, congress is not going to repeal it anytime soon. Even Bob Barr, who sponsored the legislation says it was a mistake and is unconstitutional.

You think it IS constitutional ?!

The U.S. Constitution, just like a business contract, says what it means, and means what it says. No more and no less.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#11 May 12, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
It's CLEARLY a federal issue. DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, and Artivle V.'s "full faith and credit" clause.
And failing a SCOTUS ruling that it is indeed unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia even says it "probably" is, congress is not going to repeal it anytime soon. Even Bob Barr, who sponsored the legislation says it was a mistake and is unconstitutional.
You think it IS constitutional ?!
The U.S. Constitution, just like a business contract, says what it means, and means what it says. No more and no less.
No Frank, I don't think Doma is Constitutional. I think SCOTUS (with Scalia leading the charge) will say it's a States Rights issue. And perhaps Justice Thomas will finally speak.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#12 May 12, 2011
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>No Frank, I don't think Doma is Constitutional. I think SCOTUS (with Scalia leading the charge) will say it's a States Rights issue. And perhaps Justice Thomas will finally speak.
If it's a states' rights issue, which it clearly is, than Scalia will rule it unconstitutional, because he believes in states' rights, AND he has already said publicly that DOMA is "probably unconstitutional".

And Thomas is under no obligation of any kind to speak publicly. And probably MOST SCOTUS justices never did so when they were on the bench.

Since: Oct 08

York, PA

#13 May 12, 2011
Marriage is unconstitutional, it creates a privileged class and should fail under the 'equal protection' clause.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Silver Spring, MD

#14 May 12, 2011
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you. You just confirmed the rationale of the Conservative Religious right. C.U. open the door for the downfall of marriage.
Expect a congratulatory e-mail from Maggie Galleger.
I don't think anyone at all questions the general concept of a stepping stone on the path to full equality.

You act as though actually getting civil unions would mean efforts at marriage equality would somehow cease.

No one thinks that. Not even the clueless, talibangelical, Moron Churchcult anti equality forces.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#15 May 12, 2011
Absurdity wrote:
Marriage is unconstitutional, it creates a privileged class and should fail under the 'equal protection' clause.
I agree. Keep marriage in the church where it belongs. No need for government subsidized families. What about single people???

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Silver Spring, MD

#16 May 12, 2011
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Keep marriage in the church where it belongs. No need for government subsidized families. What about single people???
The government must be involved if marriage is going to confer government benefits.

If you envision marriage as only a religious ritual which is totally separate from any secular rights - automatic visitation rights, custody in the case of death of a partner, breaks on inheritance taxes when a spouse dies - then you need to specify so in order for your post to make any sense.

Heterosexual people can marry anytime they want to if they want those rights I listed which can apply only to couples, anyway, plus the 1000 other benefits of marriage.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#17 May 12, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
The government must be involved if marriage is going to confer government benefits.
If you envision marriage as only a religious ritual which is totally separate from any secular rights - automatic visitation rights, custody in the case of death of a partner, breaks on inheritance taxes when a spouse dies - then you need to specify so in order for your post to make any sense.
Heterosexual people can marry anytime they want to if they want those rights I listed which can apply only to couples, anyway, plus the 1000 other benefits of marriage.
So take away all the benefits. Have everyone make a will. No more government handouts. No more government regulation of families. Isn't that what the republicans want? Less government intervention?
wat

Downingtown, PA

#18 May 12, 2011
article wrote:
Gay marriage supporters told lawmakers that civil unions treat gay couples as second-class citizens.
That's because it is true. Serving openly in military, marriage, and adoption are things that SHOULD have this rights period. We shouldn't have to be demanding them. We should have already have them. We shouldn't be demanding these rights, because we should already have them! Just like how the government denied black people to vote or have interracial marriage. Stop the government from limiting the freedom of all Americans!

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Tappahannock, VA

#19 May 13, 2011
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
So take away all the benefits. Have everyone make a will. No more government handouts. No more government regulation of families. Isn't that what the republicans want? Less government intervention?
You're not making a serious argument. As you know the rights involved in marriage and even the partial rights in civil unions go far beyond "a Will." They also go far beyond "government handouts."

I mentioned child custody in the event of death(s) in my previous post, for example. Under your scheme couples would need 1,000+ contracts drawn up, not just "a Will."

People are deeply confused. No government involvement in marriage? So xstain or Mormon fundies can marry 12 year old girl(s) in your scheme?

Right, you've thought this one through.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#20 May 13, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not making a serious argument. As you know the rights involved in marriage and even the partial rights in civil unions go far beyond "a Will." They also go far beyond "government handouts."
I mentioned child custody in the event of death(s) in my previous post, for example. Under your scheme couples would need 1,000+ contracts drawn up, not just "a Will."
People are deeply confused. No government involvement in marriage? So xstain or Mormon fundies can marry 12 year old girl(s) in your scheme?
Right, you've thought this one through.
Sorry... I was not being serious. I was trying the old, if we can't have it why should you line. Again, sorry.

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Silver Spring, MD

#21 May 14, 2011
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry... I was not being serious. I was trying the old, if we can't have it why should you line. Again, sorry.
I apologize for missing your irony.

However there are people on the left who think "get government out of marriage" is actually an idea which makes sense.

I would like to get clergy out of marriage - in any legal sense - while of course permitting non legally binding religious ceremonies to commemorate the obtaining of a civil marriage license.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Kingstown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Police Log: Trying To Get On The 'Nice List' (Dec '11) Fri stephanie 2
im new talk to me guys only. Feb 24 Andy 6
prudence Island fire truck Feb 17 Walt welton 1
anyone wanna skype? (Mar '13) Jan '15 Ash 16
young boys with small hairless penis Jan '15 Tugg 2
Rhode Island students get free breakfast at Den... (Feb '10) Jan '15 Dr Wu 14
West Warwick Music Selection (Sep '12) Jan '15 Musikologist 12

Winter Storm Warning for Washington County was issued at March 01 at 10:24AM EST

North Kingstown Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

North Kingstown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:40 pm PST