Gay couples leaving RI to get married

Nov 10, 2011 | Posted by: Gay And Proud | Full story: www.wpri.com

Despite Rhode Island's new civil union law, we've learned a growing number of gay couples are crossing the border or moving out of state to get married. And some studies show Rhode Island could be missing out on millions in wedding costs and tax dollars.

Comments
1 - 20 of 91 Comments Last updated Nov 16, 2011
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Disgusted American

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

I live in NJ - and my partner of 12yrs and I got married in VT 2 yrs ago - even tho NJ has CU....we decided we were NOT settling for less.....so we took OUR 2500$ vakay money and spent it in VT..they deserved it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Well DUH!

Why would anyone get "civil unionized" when they can just drive a few miles to Connecticut or Massachusetts.

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 10, 2011
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Well DUH!
Why would anyone get "civil unionized" when they can just drive a few miles to Connecticut or Massachusetts.
Why shoud we settle for civil unions at all anyway ?!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 10, 2011
 
Fred ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why shoud we settle for civil unions at all anyway ?!
No one if forcing you to settle for a civil union.

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No one if forcing you to settle for a civil union.
What I'm saying is there should be no such thing as civil unions for anyboday at all. We are the only group of people who have been told "We won't let you marry, but we'll give you the lesser status of 'civil unions' instead.

What if the same thing were said to Muslim people ? Or Native AMerican people ? Or ohysically handicapped peple ?

The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES "equal protection of the laws" ad states that do NOT allow gay and lesbian people to marry, SOLELY for th e very reason that they are gay or lesbian, are IMO, violating the 14th Amendment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 10, 2011
 
Fred ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What I'm saying is there should be no such thing as civil unions for anyboday at all. We are the only group of people who have been told "We won't let you marry, but we'll give you the lesser status of 'civil unions' instead.
What if the same thing were said to Muslim people ? Or Native AMerican people ? Or ohysically handicapped peple ?
The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES "equal protection of the laws" ad states that do NOT allow gay and lesbian people to marry, SOLELY for th e very reason that they are gay or lesbian, are IMO, violating the 14th Amendment.
I know what you're saying, but 1- the courts haven't said that yet, and 2- some people need the protections of civil unions until the courts finally DO say that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

On a related issue, Oregon gay rights groups have decided not to try to overturn their marriage ban in 2012. Obviously they read the polling and didn't want to waste the money just to lose again.

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 10, 2011
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
On a related issue, Oregon gay rights groups have decided not to try to overturn their marriage ban in 2012. Obviously they read the polling and didn't want to waste the money just to lose again.
We need SCOTUS to settle this, and I think they will do so in our favor in th enext 5 - 7 years. This state by state approach, at this time, I believe, is a waste of time and money.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 10, 2011
 
Fred ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
We need SCOTUS to settle this, and I think they will do so in our favor in th enext 5 - 7 years. This state by state approach, at this time, I believe, is a waste of time and money.
The state-by-state approach can provide the tipping point at the SCOTUS level though. It did when the issue was addressed in Canada almost ten years ago!

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 10, 2011
 
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
The state-by-state approach can provide the tipping point at the SCOTUS level though. It did when the issue was addressed in Canada almost ten years ago!
I disagree. We already have a number of states, such as New York, and almost certainy Cali coming soon. THAT is the tipping point. 20+% of the U.S. population living in states that allow gay marriage. Adding states that have 1% or 2% of the population is not worth the effort.

btw, what is the latest on Cali and what is the timeline of the next step in the Prop 8 fight ?
Rick Perry s Stump

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 10, 2011
 
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
The state-by-state approach can provide the tipping point at the SCOTUS level though. It did when the issue was addressed in Canada almost ten years ago!
If you continue to correspond with a pedophile online, imo, you could wind up being investigated.

Do you really think it's wise to converse with such a person?
Disgusted American

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 10, 2011
 
when SCOTUS passed Inter-Racial marriage throughout america - over 70% of the country was AGAINST IT......we're well under that - bout 50/50 now....

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 10, 2011
 
Disgusted American wrote:
when SCOTUS passed Inter-Racial marriage throughout america - over 70% of the country was AGAINST IT......we're well under that - bout 50/50 now....
The "majority" of Americans didn't agree that the marriages of inter-racial couples were acceptable until 1991. That's another 24 years that inter-racial couples would have been denied the right to marry if their marriages were put to vote like ours have been.

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 10, 2011
 
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The "majority" of Americans didn't agree that the marriages of inter-racial couples were acceptable until 1991. That's another 24 years that inter-racial couples would have been denied the right to marry if their marriages were put to vote like ours have been.
All the more reason to increase court actions rather than wasting time, money, and other resources trying to go thru the ballot box.

Fundamental RIGHTS are not subject to a majority vote.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

That is a downright lie. It is a shame you feel the need to ride the backs of minorities and then lie about the facts in order to support your position
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The "majority" of Americans didn't agree that the marriages of inter-racial couples were acceptable until 1991. That's another 24 years that inter-racial couples would have been denied the right to marry if their marriages were put to vote like ours have been.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 10, 2011
 
The supreme court decides by a majority vote
Fred ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
All the more reason to increase court actions rather than wasting time, money, and other resources trying to go thru the ballot box.
Fundamental RIGHTS are not subject to a majority vote.

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Honest AbeL wrote:
The supreme court decides by a majority vote
<quoted text>
At SCOTUS, yes, but not by the average voter at the ballot box they're not.

And even Justice Scalia, arguably one of the most conservative members of SCOTUS, and certainly no friend to gay and lesbian Americans has publicly said that DOMA is "probably unconstitutional".

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 10, 2011
 

Judged:

1

That is true but he supports the states rights to limit marriages to heterosexual couples
Fred ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
At SCOTUS, yes, but not by the average voter at the ballot box they're not.
And even Justice Scalia, arguably one of the most conservative members of SCOTUS, and certainly no friend to gay and lesbian Americans has publicly said that DOMA is "probably unconstitutional".

“WOOF !”

Since: Jul 11

Libertarian

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 10, 2011
 
Honest AbeL wrote:
That is true but he supports the states rights to limit marriages to heterosexual couples
<quoted text>
While he may believe that, I do not believe that a majority of the court will believe that when they finally rule on the matter in the next 5 - 7 years (I'm making an educated guess on the timeframe). And since you are supposedly not gay (or else deeply buried in the closet), why doe stis issue consume you so much ?

I believe I asked you on an other thread how a gay or lesbian couple being married in New York adversely affects you, or even affects you at all, but you never answered. Care to answer me now ?

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 10, 2011
 
It doesn't consume me despite what your uneducated opinion is. It is unlike you to attempt to call people gay as an insult. I will ignore that because I believe that you are above the level of some of the ignorant trash on here.
You would have asked how having homosexuality removed from the DSM effects me but we now see the result of that poor decision. We are seeing gay marriage, teaching sexual orientation in schools, special rights involving hate crimes, and a high price tag on all the silly court cases. Anyone can clearly see how this effects everyone. It is really a stupid question
Fred ABQ wrote:
<quoted text>
While he may believe that, I do not believe that a majority of the court will believe that when they finally rule on the matter in the next 5 - 7 years (I'm making an educated guess on the timeframe). And since you are supposedly not gay (or else deeply buried in the closet), why doe stis issue consume you so much ?
I believe I asked you on an other thread how a gay or lesbian couple being married in New York adversely affects you, or even affects you at all, but you never answered. Care to answer me now ?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••