Forums - Politics Discussion - USA's most predominate Roman Catholic State just passed Marriage Equality (Same Sex Marriage)

Tagged games:

Rhode Island has a large percentage Roman Catholics and on May 2nd, passed Marriage Equality granting full civil rights to all same sex couples.  The Governor has promised to sign.   There are now 10 states and the District of Colombia (Washington DC) with full marriage rights for same sex couples.  With Nevada, Delaware, Minnesota, Colorado and other also working on Marriage Rights for Same Sex Couples Isn't it enviable?

In 2013 the majority of Roman Catholics asked in a poll in the USA support full civil rights recognizing to same sex couples.

(Note: In the USA NO Church or Priest, Reverend, Imam or similar can be forced to perform a ceremony with which they do not agree.)

 

By DAVID KLEPPER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island is joining nine other states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry after the state's General Assembly gave it a final procedural vote on Thursday.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee planned to sign the legislation into law Thursday evening. Hundreds are expected to gather at the Statehouse to celebrate the new law, which already passed the House and Senate once. The first weddings could take place Aug. 1, when the new law would take effect.

The other five New England states already have gay marriage, but bills that would have changed marriage laws in heavily Catholic Rhode Island sputtered for nearly 20 years until this year. More gay marriage supporters were elected to the legislature last fall, and advocates mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to pressure undecided lawmakers.

The House passed the bill in January at the behest of House Speaker Gordon Fox, D-Providence, who is gay. The Senate was seen as the bigger challenge, but the bill passed easily last week after Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, said she would allow a vote despite her opposition to gay marriage. The House gave final approval Thursday with a 56-15 vote.

Thursday was an especially sweet day for the many gay and lesbian Rhode Islanders who have worked for years to pass gay marriage in the nation's smallest state.

Jenn Steinfeld, one of the co-founders of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, began her relationship with her partner 13 years ago after the two, then acquaintances, saw each other at one of the many legislative hearings on gay marriage. Steinfeld has watched the movement grow from a few people into thousands of volunteers, many of whom are not gay or lesbian.

"When we started, I knew every single person in our database," she said. "Now I go to events and I don't know anybody. I think that's wonderful. Seeing the tide change, seeing people who aren't personally affected support us, it's just been amazing."

Once the new law takes effect, civil unions in Rhode Island would no longer be available to same-sex couples, though the state would continue to recognize existing civil unions. Lawmakers approved civil unions two years ago, though few couples have sought them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/rhode-island-gay-marriage_n_3204020.html



I am sad for the loss of innovation, all gaming and gamers mourn the pushing back of the future to another time.  The ice cream may be melting.  E3 Save us all!


Around the Network
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

This. I do disagree with the second statement, though. Marriage has a legal side as well, and legal matters belong to the government. It's kind of another matter if you wish to strip away the legal side from marriage.



Zkuq said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

This. I do disagree with the second statement, though. Marriage has a legal side as well, and legal matters belong to the government. It's kind of another matter if you wish to strip away the legal side from marriage.

It can be like any other private contract between two individuals. Government's job is only to enforce the contract in court once it's breached/settle an agreement. 



sc94597 said:
Zkuq said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

This. I do disagree with the second statement, though. Marriage has a legal side as well, and legal matters belong to the government. It's kind of another matter if you wish to strip away the legal side from marriage.

It can be like any other private contract between two individuals. Government's job is only to enforce the contract in court once it's breached/settle an agreement. 

Don't such contracts usually require lawyers and such to be reliable? I find it a good idea to have a ready template for such a contract. And what about kids? I doubt a 'marriage contract' is suitable for normal people that don't understand legal stuff all that well.



Around the Network
Zkuq said:
sc94597 said:
Zkuq said:
killerzX said:
its not marriage equality. its homosexual couples marriage.

anyway, i just wish the state would get out of marriage. its not the governments job.

This. I do disagree with the second statement, though. Marriage has a legal side as well, and legal matters belong to the government. It's kind of another matter if you wish to strip away the legal side from marriage.

It can be like any other private contract between two individuals. Government's job is only to enforce the contract in court once it's breached/settle an agreement. 

Don't such contracts usually require lawyers and such to be reliable? I find it a good idea to have a ready template for such a contract. And what about kids? I doubt a 'marriage contract' is suitable for normal people that don't understand legal stuff all that well.

It would probably be easier than how it is now (which by the way still includes lawyers.) I've heard of the horror stories of the divorcing process. Not to mention that it could be quite unfair to certain person's in the marriage, fiscally. As for the kids, certainly that's a separate matter of custody (which does not involve marriage - unmarried individuals still have custody battles.) 



In the past marriages between different ethnicities or different social backgrounds or different religions/confessions or ofcourse same sex marriages were banned, because other people had the power to do so.

That's why government has to get involved, as the consent of the elected representatives of all people living in a country is a powerful statement.



Lafiel said:
In the past marriages between different ethnicities or different social backgrounds or different religions/confessions or ofcourse same sex mariages were banned, because other people had the power to do so.

That's why government has to get involved, as the consent of the elected representatives of all people living in a country is a powerful statement.

Only because government was involved in marriage. If there is no state to enforce such policies then there would be total liberty in this area. 



As much as I have no problem with two men or women marrying and living their lives I can't help but be concerned about "equality". We should not be working towards this goal of stripping away our gender. Man and Woman are uniquely different and play an important role in marriage. In a gay marriage, man or woman, they likelihood of both unique qualities being present lessens for example who will be the nurturer? who will be the dominant figure? Marriage was invented as a relationship between a man and a woman and specifically through religious organizations. It is without question one of the single most important inventions man has created and to simply change it's definition without any thought of the impending consequences is very troubling for our society.

Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Lafiel said:
In the past marriages between different ethnicities or different social backgrounds or different religions/confessions or ofcourse same sex mariages were banned, because other people had the power to do so.

That's why government has to get involved, as the consent of the elected representatives of all people living in a country is a powerful statement.

Only because government was involved in marriage. If there is no state to enforce such policies then there would be total liberty in this area. 

no, if religion for example says "it's wrong", then there will be people who enforce it, with or without government involvement

in the past (even nowadays) families/tribes often enforced it themselves

to have the liberty to marry whom you want to marry (consenting adults ofcourse) government has to be involved and say it's ok to do so