Comments on: LGBT Groups Urge Veto of Rhode Island Civil Unions Bill

By: Philip D

Philip D — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:03:13 +0000

Rhode Island already recognizes same sex marriages from other states with none of these religious exemptions. The new law specifically notes the exemptions relate only to civil unions. Therefore, a same sex couple married in another state could be treated differently in Rhode Island than a same sex couple with a civil union. Seems completely unconstitutional. The legislators aren’t doing their jobs.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:45:38 +0000

People act like these religious exemptions don’t matter and that they are happy to give them away. I’m with Jim, this is going too far and will delay full equality a long time.

If you keep going down this path pretty soon the only marriage gays and lesbians will be able to get is one that everyone is free to ignore, a situation no different than it would be if a couple had a church marry them in Texas – entirely symbolic.

By: Theo

Theo — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:51:07 +0000

I repeat what I said elsewhere on BTB. If this were Idaho, I’d be pleased to get this. If this were a referendum state, I’d accept this as a step in the right direction.

But this is Rhode Island, where the Dems control both chambers by huge majorities. Republicans are a negligible factor and there is no referendum process. The polls in RI show substantial support. And the voters in 2010 selected the most outspoken pro-SSM gubernatorial candidate out of a field of 3. In that context, getting a civil unions bill with the broadest religious exemption of any state is not a step in the right direction; it is more like a slap in the face.

By: Patrick Garies

Patrick Garies — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 05:57:08 +0000

I think this amendment highlights that the marriage equality controversy has nothing to do with marriage per se and everything to do with religion and recognition of the legitimacy of gay people.

The whole point of civil unions is that they’re supposed to be a completely secular alternative to marriage. And yet now we have to have a conscience opt-out for a civil contract. That defeats the whole purpose of a civil unions compromise.

Instead of this amendment, all licensed marriage officials should be required to grant civil unions to all who request them with no religious exemptions unless that person only marries and unions people belonging to a very specific religious organization and makes membership checks prior to granting a marriage or civil union. This would make sense because, of course, civil unions are not supposed to have any religious connotation.

(That or we could just go straight to marriage equality avoiding the whole mess from the start.)

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:33:09 +0000

My concern is that this bill will actually delay the progress toward marriage equality. I think marriage quality is achievable with good leadership, if not now then in a couple of years. But if civil unions are already in place, too many people will see it as not being much of a priority, it’ll be the better part of a decade before true equality arrives. Meanwhile, these exemptions are so broad that those who have civil unions will find that they won’t even be able to get Meals on Wheels or proper nursing home care as a couple.

By: David

David — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:19:32 +0000

The only problem that I have with the proposed ‘exemption clause’ is that the exemptions extend to groups that receive public funds. Other than that, I also agree with Chaffee.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:13:09 +0000

If any of those Catholic hospitals accept Medicare, they already have to allow patients to determine who is family, regardless of theology or religious position.

As for the rest, I respect the opinions of GLAD and the others about those who choose employment with the Catholic Church, but I’m with Chaffee on this. Its a step in the right direction and until marriage equality can be achieved, this bill will protect the rights of real people, actual same-sex couples, living in Rhode Island.