Same-sex marriage faces first vote in RI

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
The House won't be a problem; it's the Senate where we may run into a glitch.

I am very optimistic. Things have be breaking our way.

Now all we need is a good scandal to discredit the Roman Catholic Church's authority. Oh what's that you say?

[Quest]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Morning Quest,
Seems that in almost 5 years that I have been on topix, David has repeated that same post or similar one probably over 10,000 times and still he doesn't get it......it matters not how many Same-Sex couples actually get married, it MATTERS that they have the right to make that all important decision:-)
Peace to you and yours:-)

And to you as well.:)

[Quest]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
lol
Because of the way things are going in locations around the world, my sect decided on an increase in ISP budget to an unlimited account.
So, other duties permitting, I'll be here in my usual guise, instead of just popping in for a tad.

You may "pop" in any way you like, My Dear.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I am very optimistic. Things have be breaking our way.
Now all we need is a good scandal to discredit the Roman Catholic Church's authority. Oh what's that you say?

Agreed. I think this is the year we finally get Rhode Island. Even if we should fail, there are 7 other states in the mix for this year; surely we'll get a victory in some of them- IL, DE, HI, NJ, NM, MN, and of course CA.

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. I think this is the year we finally get Rhode Island. Even if we should fail, there are 7 other states in the mix for this year; surely we'll get a victory in some of them- IL, DE, HI, NJ, NM, MN, and of course CA.

I will also be pleased to get more states that recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or what-ever-you-call them. It's hard to see how Colorado would not join the list.

Of course, I expect the number of states recognizing civil whatchamacallits will decrease, on net. If three states move from civil unions to marriage equality and two states adopt civil unions, we end up with few civil union states.

That is already happening. There are currently nine states plus the District of Columbia recognizing marriage equality. Five states recognize civil unions. Only three states recognize domestic partnerships. I can easily imagine the count being 13-4-2 by the end of 2013.

Arguments for a separate-but-equal status for gay couples are ineffective.

[Quest]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. I think this is the year we finally get Rhode Island. Even if we should fail, there are 7 other states in the mix for this year; surely we'll get a victory in some of them- IL, DE, HI, NJ, NM, MN, and of course CA.

And for those we lose, we come back again, through the courts, the vote, the legislatures. If need be, we do it every year, and every election cycle.

Until we win.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I will also be pleased to get more states that recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or what-ever-you-call them. It's hard to see how Colorado would not join the list.
Of course, I expect the number of states recognizing civil whatchamacallits will decrease, on net. If three states move from civil unions to marriage equality and two states adopt civil unions, we end up with few civil union states.
That is already happening. There are currently nine states plus the District of Columbia recognizing marriage equality. Five states recognize civil unions. Only three states recognize domestic partnerships. I can easily imagine the count being 13-4-2 by the end of 2013.
Arguments for a separate-but-equal status for gay couples are ineffective.

That sounds about right. I don't expect we'll get all 8 states in play this year, but half is certainly possible.

[WeTheSheeple]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
And for those we lose, we come back again, through the courts, the vote, the legislatures. If need be, we do it every year, and every election cycle.
Until we win.

Agreed.

We need to be prepared for the losses which are certainly possible (even with the prop 8 case) and not let them derail us from our ultimate goal.

We make HUGE HISTORIC gains this past year, but the battle is far from over.

[nhjeff]

The Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee has its hearing on civil unions today at 1:30. You should be able to listen in here:
http://coloradoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.ph...

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

The Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee has its hearing on civil unions today at 1:30. You should be able to listen in here:
http://coloradoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.ph...

Thanks for the heads up.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

The Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee has its hearing on civil unions today at 1:30. You should be able to listen in here:
http://coloradoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.ph...

Would that be 1:30 Mountain Time?

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Would that be 1:30 Mountain Time?

I would assume so.... It comes from the legislative calendar.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I would assume so.... It comes from the legislative calendar.

Listening now, though the audio keeps cutting out every few words. So much for high speed cable internet!

[The Gay Plague]

And fraud.
Children's rights?

[NorCal Native]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Listening now, though the audio keeps cutting out every few words. So much for high speed cable internet!

Exactly!!!

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Listening now, though the audio keeps cutting out every few words. So much for high speed cable internet!

My connection was completely stable after they got started. The line-up certainly seemed to be stacked in our favor. I find myself wondering if they will let the other side speak another day.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
My connection was completely stable after they got started. The line-up certainly seemed to be stacked in our favor. I find myself wondering if they will let the other side speak another day.

I finally gave up on the audio. From what I've read, everyone seems quite confident this will easily pass and become law now that the Dems basically control the whole state govt.

[Gays Run the World]

PoW wrote:

Not one of you mindless homofascist clones has been able to refute

And for good reason
.
The only mindless clone in this chat room is you
.
The rest of us run the world

[Not Yet Equal]

RI already recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states, countries, and DC.(Making 10 states that recognize marriage equality, while only 9 issue licenses at home.)

This should be a slam dunk. Might as well issue those licenses at home rather than making residents cross the state line and spend their money there. But nothing dies so hard or rallies so often as prejudice.

[Curteese]

PoW wrote:

Not one of you mindless homofascist clones has been able to refute even one of these points, leaving homosexual 'marriage' exposed as a cruel lie and just a political charade: Homosexual 'marriage' is 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?

Not one of your false lying names has fooled one reader yet.

As for YOUR behavior, CALEB, DAVID MOORE, LUKE, JAYCE, RAND, MAX, TRUTHTELLER, POW, why not follow your OWN last sentence? "Why not try a little live and let live?"