RI gay marriage bill faces uncertain future

24, 2013. . Rhode Island Speaker of the House Gordon Fox, right, speaks with people on the floor of the House Chamber as R.I. . Rhode Island Speaker of the House Gordon Fox, center, speaks with Ray Sullivan, campaign director for Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, right, in the House Chamber at the Statehouse, in Providence, R.I.,Thursday, Jan.

[Umninimuzi]

As I've stated before, these opponents act as if they're the ones to decide whether gays will be allowed to form families and have children in the future. They're wrong!

Evolution has given gays procreative powers just like everyone else, and there is no law in the land that will prevent them from having children if they so choose. The only question is whether these State and Federal governments will be so bigoted and mean-spirited to deny the children of gays the same legislative protections that other children enjoy. Children of single heterosexual parents can enjoy a legally recognized relationship with a step-parent -- so why can't the children of a gay father or mother likewise have a step-parent?

That is not 'redefining' marriage, it is simply reaffirming the value of marriage for everyone raising kids or needing companionship.

[Quest]

Umninimuzi wrote:

As I've stated before, these opponents act as if they're the ones to decide whether gays will be allowed to form families and have children in the future. They're wrong!
Evolution has given gays procreative powers just like everyone else, and there is no law in the land that will prevent them from having children if they so choose. The only question is whether these State and Federal governments will be so bigoted and mean-spirited to deny the children of gays the same legislative protections that other children enjoy. Children of single heterosexual parents can enjoy a legally recognized relationship with a step-parent -- so why can't the children of a gay father or mother likewise have a step-parent?
That is not 'redefining' marriage, it is simply reaffirming the value of marriage for everyone raising kids or needing companionship.

Amen.

[AzAdam]

Umninimuzi wrote:

As I've stated before, these opponents act as if they're the ones to decide whether gays will be allowed to form families and have children in the future. They're wrong!
Evolution has given gays procreative powers just like everyone else, and there is no law in the land that will prevent them from having children if they so choose. The only question is whether these State and Federal governments will be so bigoted and mean-spirited to deny the children of gays the same legislative protections that other children enjoy. Children of single heterosexual parents can enjoy a legally recognized relationship with a step-parent -- so why can't the children of a gay father or mother likewise have a step-parent?
That is not 'redefining' marriage, it is simply reaffirming the value of marriage for everyone raising kids or needing companionship.

So true

[David Traversa]

Umninimuzi wrote:

As I've stated before, these opponents act as if they're the ones to decide whether gays will be allowed to form families and have children in the future. They're wrong!
Evolution has given gays procreative powers just like everyone else, and there is no law in the land that will prevent them from having children if they so choose. The only question is whether these State and Federal governments will be so bigoted and mean-spirited to deny the children of gays the same legislative protections that other children enjoy. Children of single heterosexual parents can enjoy a legally recognized relationship with a step-parent -- so why can't the children of a gay father or mother likewise have a step-parent?
That is not 'redefining' marriage, it is simply reaffirming the value of marriage for everyone raising kids or needing companionship.

Terrific, as usual..

[TheTroll Stopper]

Equal aka David Moore the Closeted Self-Loathing Pekin Troll wrote:

Homosexual 'marriage' is yap yap yap blah blah blah...

Hey David Moore, are you still bitter that your ex-wife won't let you anywhere near your own kids anymore? Enjoy the closet! LOLAY!

[Jupiter]

Equal wrote:

Homosexual 'marriage' is of course a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

Ho hum...more spam from you. Get a life.

[Cal In AZ]

The "Rhode Island..." legislature is one of the MOST DEMOCRATIC in the U.S. with AT LEAST 85% of the members being DEMOCRATS. So why are so many DEMOCRATS absolutely opposed to EQUALITY ???

[Not Yet Equal]

Umninimuzi wrote:

As I've stated before, these opponents act as if they're the ones to decide whether gays will be allowed to form families and have children in the future. They're wrong!
Evolution has given gays procreative powers just like everyone else, and there is no law in the land that will prevent them from having children if they so choose. The only question is whether these State and Federal governments will be so bigoted and mean-spirited to deny the children of gays the same legislative protections that other children enjoy. Children of single heterosexual parents can enjoy a legally recognized relationship with a step-parent -- so why can't the children of a gay father or mother likewise have a step-parent?
That is not 'redefining' marriage, it is simply reaffirming the value of marriage for everyone raising kids or needing companionship.

Well said.

Treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect does change the marriages of straight couples in any way. They lose nothing, nor do they gain anything by harming gay couples and their children by refusing to treat them as they would themselves.

Amazing how many weak excuses are offered for refusing to follow the Golden Rule.

[Not Yet Equal]

Correction: Treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect does NOT change the marriages of straight couples in any way.

[Cal In AZ]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Well said.
Treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect does change the marriages of straight couples in any way. They lose nothing, nor do they gain anything by harming gay couples and their children by refusing to treat them as they would themselves.
Amazing how many weak excuses are offered for refusing to follow the Golden Rule.

The "Rhode Island..." legislature is one of the MOST DEMOCRATIC in the U.S. with AT LEAST 85% of the members being DEMOCRATS. So why are so many DEMOCRATS absolutely opposed to EQUALITY ???

[Not Yet Equal]

Cal In AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
The "Rhode Island..." legislature is one of the MOST DEMOCRATIC in the U.S. with AT LEAST 85% of the members being DEMOCRATS. So why are so many DEMOCRATS absolutely opposed to EQUALITY ???

Your desire to demonize all democrats fails to recognize; without them, it would still be illegal to simply be gay. All of the advancements we have made have been over the resistance of republicans, with the help of democrats.

Re RI: I suspect a major factor is that they already recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and countries, and as a result, individual legislators don't want to stand up against the religious opposition they will face if they vote for equality. It is easier to let the gay couples spend their money in neighboring states than face the religious and fearful voters at home if you don't have to.

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

wow.. why do christards always want and demand SPECIAL RIGHTS.... There is no CHRISTARD GENE.... it is clearly just a sicke perverted CHOICE that the pick and does not deserve SPECIAL RIGHTS

[Cal In AZ]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
Your desire to demonize all democrats fails to recognize; without them, it would still be illegal to simply be gay. All of the advancements we have made have been over the resistance of republicans, with the help of democrats.
Re RI: I suspect a major factor is that they already recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and countries, and as a result, individual legislators don't want to stand up against the religious opposition they will face if they vote for equality. It is easier to let the gay couples spend their money in neighboring states than face the religious and fearful voters at home if you don't have to.

I will back awa y NOT AN INCH, NOT A MILLIMETER, NOT A MICRON, in proclaiming the OBVIOUS FACT that ALL DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL. PURE EVIL. They worship ONLY Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Uncle Joe Stalin, and Teh Obamaniac. PURE EVIL.(And I shall vote in the several states accordingly.:))

[Jupiter]

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:

wow.. why do christards always want and demand SPECIAL RIGHTS.... There is no CHRISTARD GENE.... it is clearly just a sicke perverted CHOICE that the pick and does not deserve SPECIAL RIGHTS

Your posts always make me smile -- they're like a breath of fresh air. Hope you're doing well, sweetie.

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
Your posts always make me smile -- they're like a breath of fresh air. Hope you're doing well, sweetie.

lol... ty sweetie... just love hitting them with the same bs they use