Passage of Marriage Bill in Rhode Island Hinges on Religious Exemptions

Jan 26, 2013 Full story: EDGE 42

The fate of gay marriage legislation in Rhode Island could hinge on the exemptions it affords religious groups that oppose it, the State Senate president said Friday, a day after the House overwhelmingly passed the bill.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1 Jan 26, 2013
Go ahead and pass it with religious exemptions.

Eventually those will all be washed out.
SHELBY

Mississauga, Canada

#2 Jan 26, 2013
IF the Church is allowed in the Nations bedrooms.
Then they need to confess what is going on in all the Rectory's Convents, and Mosques ect,ect

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Jan 26, 2013
Tony C wrote:
Go ahead and pass it with religious exemptions.
Eventually those will all be washed out.
I agree.

Any additional religious exemptions for private businesses would likely be overturned by the courts after the first lawsuit.

Whatever it takes to get it passed.
Qwerty26

Lewes, DE

#4 Jan 26, 2013
"...promised a "full and fair debate" on what she said is a personal and emotional issue for many lawmakers...."

How can this be a "personal and emotional" issue for anyone who is not gay? People who want to judge others?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6 Jan 26, 2013
Tony C wrote:
Go ahead and pass it with religious exemptions.
Eventually those will all be washed out.
Agree. That was a sticking point in New Hampshire's marriage bill, too. A gay Republican proponent I corresponded with was planning to vote against based on the broad religious exclusions. I like to think our conversation steered him toward the same view that you just expressed.

90% is way way better than 0%.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7 Jan 26, 2013
I just read an interesting analysis that rates Providence the least religious city in the United States, with less than 10% reading the Bible within the last week and believing that it defines morality.

Obviously the Roman Catholic Church does not have the control over the electorate that it likes to portray.
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#8 Jan 26, 2013
Always religion (i.e. superstition) standing in the way of progress.. Can't man shake off these fetters one and for all? Can't he learn to trust his intelligence (fed by the proper education) to organize and conduct his all too short life? Tragic..
Chris PK

Columbus, OH

#9 Jan 26, 2013
Silly... No Pastor ever married anybody they didn't choose to. Any religious organization/Minister has always been able to choose who they marry, who they won't, if they marry only members, will marry non-members. And always could refuse to marry anybody they think isn't in earnest, can't get along, or isn't suitable. Nothing changes.
Ask any PK-Preachers Kid

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10 Jan 26, 2013
Chris PK wrote:
Silly... No Pastor ever married anybody they didn't choose to. Any religious organization/Minister has always been able to choose who they marry, who they won't, if they marry only members, will marry non-members. And always could refuse to marry anybody they think isn't in earnest, can't get along, or isn't suitable. Nothing changes.
Ask any PK-Preachers Kid
In the 8 1/2 years of civil marriage equality in Massachusetts, the catholic church has married 0, zero, same-sex couples. Likewise, the catholics have married 0, zero, divorced couples (of the male/female variety). The same holds true for any other religion that doesn't support same-sex marriage. Those religions that DO support same-sex marriage are no free to marry these couples as they would the male/female couples. THAT is religious freedom.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Jan 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
In the 8 1/2 years of civil marriage equality in Massachusetts, the catholic church has married 0, zero, same-sex couples. Likewise, the catholics have married 0, zero, divorced couples (of the male/female variety). The same holds true for any other religion that doesn't support same-sex marriage. Those religions that DO support same-sex marriage are no free to marry these couples as they would the male/female couples. THAT is religious freedom.
Which is EXACTLY WHY the Roman Catholic Church is UN-AMERICAN. They seek to impose their narrow views, thru civil law, on ALL Americans whether they're Catholic or not. Why should people such as myself, who CHOOSE NOT to be a damn Catholic, be forced to follow CATHOLIC DOCTRINE impose thru civil law ?!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12 Jan 26, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
Which is EXACTLY WHY the Roman Catholic Church is UN-AMERICAN. They seek to impose their narrow views, thru civil law, on ALL Americans whether they're Catholic or not. Why should people such as myself, who CHOOSE NOT to be a damn Catholic, be forced to follow CATHOLIC DOCTRINE impose thru civil law ?!
The catholic church is not alone in their endeavors though. The same can be said for most, if not all, fundamentalist religions.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Jan 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
The catholic church is not alone in their endeavors though. The same can be said for most, if not all, fundamentalist religions.
That's true. But the Roman catholic Church seems to be particularly active in their efforst to prevent marriage equality in the U.S.

And I belong to two denominations that permit gay marriage in the church.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#14 Jan 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Agree. That was a sticking point in New Hampshire's marriage bill, too. A gay Republican proponent I corresponded with was planning to vote against based on the broad religious exclusions. I like to think our conversation steered him toward the same view that you just expressed.
90% is way way better than 0%.
I agree, but I am against religious exemptions. I figure once a person or organization steps outside of a purely religious role, they should have to follow the same rules other people do. If a priest doesn't want to sprinkle holy water on a gay couple, fine, but if they are performing a civil task, they should have to follow the law.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Jan 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but I am against religious exemptions. I figure once a person or organization steps outside of a purely religious role, they should have to follow the same rules other people do. If a priest doesn't want to sprinkle holy water on a gay couple, fine, but if they are performing a civil task, they should have to follow the law.
I agree, but we can fight that one AFTER we get Marriage Equality on the books in the State.

We need a very solid 1/3 of the States before we can begin to relax a bit. Hit people too hard in their superstition comfort zone and the backlash could be fierce indeed, not only locking up States we've yet to win, but fill States we've got with piranha legislation.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#16 Jan 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but I am against religious exemptions. I figure once a person or organization steps outside of a purely religious role, they should have to follow the same rules other people do. If a priest doesn't want to sprinkle holy water on a gay couple, fine, but if they are performing a civil task, they should have to follow the law.
I totally agree with you and I think any religious organization that wants to have a say in civil matters should lose their tax exempt status.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18 Jan 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but we can fight that one AFTER we get Marriage Equality on the books in the State.
We need a very solid 1/3 of the States before we can begin to relax a bit. Hit people too hard in their superstition comfort zone and the backlash could be fierce indeed, not only locking up States we've yet to win, but fill States we've got with piranha legislation.
17 states is gonna take awhile. I think a critical mass will be reached long before then where SCOTUS will rule that all states must legally recognize the marriages of all other states, str8 or gay, as per the full faith and credit clause.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#19 Jan 27, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
17 states is gonna take awhile. I think a critical mass will be reached long before then where SCOTUS will rule that all states must legally recognize the marriages of all other states, str8 or gay, as per the full faith and credit clause.
Precedent for an interp of FF&C is against us at the SCOTUS level.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#20 Jan 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Precedent for an interp of FF&C is against us at the SCOTUS level.
They have ruled on the full faith and credit clause before, most recently in the General Motors case, I believe.

And Chief Justice Roberts has proven that he can rule any way he wishes regardless of precedent or what the U.S. Constitution actually says.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#21 Jan 27, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Gross.
You have been reported.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#22 Jan 27, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
17 states is gonna take awhile..
We are much closer to 17 states practicing marriage equality than most imagine. We already have nine. Plus there are already eight more states with strong civil unions or domestic partnerships, most of which are on the verge of taking the final step (RI, IL, NJ, DE, CA, HI, OR). Only Oregon requires a popular vote to overturn an amendment. California could overturn its amendment in court this summer, or at the ballot at the next Presidential election.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Comedy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bill Maher keynote address at Cal challenged by... 2 hr Chiclets 8
PBS Announces One-Hour Special Honoring Robin W... 4 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
'Young and the Restless' spoilers: Chelsea says... Thu amw 3
West Contra Costa sewer director refuses to res... (Nov '13) Wed Algertha 5
The Young and the Restless Spoilers: Adam Newma... (Mar '14) Wed dmw 6
Eileen Davidson to guest star on 'The Young and... (Mar '13) Wed dmw 4
Days of Our Lives Spoilers: Is Michael Muhney H... Oct 28 janice Boswell 2

Comedy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE