Comments on: Nine

By: Hue-Man

Hue-Man — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:48:14 +0000

Gays and lesbians are finally understanding two things about civil unions/domestic partnerships after following the UK and France experience. First, civil marriage is a government construct – if it’s good enough for the straights why should gays have to settle for second class? The second point is that civil unions are NOT a stepping-stone to marriage; so far, the political bigots have said: “Those greedy gays and lesbians (they aren’t that polite) aren’t satisfied with what WE’VE given them. Shut up and go away.”

By: Rob in San Diego

Rob in San Diego — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:13:22 +0000

They probably all went to New York.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:10:09 +0000

@Rebecca, sorry I wasn’t more clear in my tongue in cheek method of pointing out the absurdity of Anti-gay Inc.’s claims about the gay community.

To hear them talk you would think that only 1 in ten trillion people are gay. Maybe I left off a zero. :)

By: Rebecca Ashling

Rebecca Ashling — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:56:39 +0000

6.8 billion humans. Silly typo!

By: Rebecca Ashling

Rebecca Ashling — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:55:42 +0000

So if I counted the zeroes correctly, these people say only one in a trillion people are gay or lesbian, and only one in ten thousand of these want to be married. Can’t they apply simple arithmetic to their hyperbole? There are only about 6.8 humans on this planet after all.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:12:58 +0000

Zeke, the other hole in their logic is if they really believe virtually no gays are going to marry how is gays marrying supposed to destroy heterosexual marriages?

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0000

Anti marriage equality people love to boast that marriage equality isn’t important because (according to them) only 0.000000000001% of the population is gay and only 0.0001% if them even want marriage. Let’s accept their bizarre math and statistics for a moment. Lets say that marriage had been made legal in Rhode Island, instead of Civil Unions, and the same number of people (or LESS) had shown up to marry, which is slightly possible, the response should be IT DOESN’T MATTER ONE BIT how many people take advantage of the right to marry. A civil right should be available to EVERYONE even if NO ONE wants to take advantage of it.

By: TonyJazz

TonyJazz — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:13:16 +0000

Good to see people avoiding this embarrassment of civil unions in RI.

Half a loaf?

No thanks…. (what were those legislators thinking???)

By: justme

justme — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:38:15 +0000

How can you separate marriage from the state when marriage is granted, enforced and dissolved only by the state? That would mean marriage didn’t exist, seeing as how it’s only a function of the state.

Obviously, abolishing marriage would level the playing field for everyone, but, realistically, that is not going to happen. So why not make this purely state function equally available to couples regardless of their sexual orientation, as is our right as tax-paying state-supporting citizens? That would seem to be the easiest solution and is obviously the correct one.

As to sentimentality about anything, it’s fine if you have it, but it has no bearing on the law, basic human rights and equality.

By: Theo

Theo — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:25:56 +0000

RI Senate – 29 Dems, 8 Republicans, 1 Independent

RI House – 65 Dems, 10 Republicans

And despite this overwhelming control of both houses of the legislature, the Democrats tell us that “the votes weren’t there” for marriage equality. What a complete and total betrayal.

Unfortunately, the RI gays don’t show any signs of creating their equivalent of FightBackNY, in which they knock off a target list of anti-gay Dems. Until they do that, or bribe Sen. Pres. Paiva-Weed, they will never get marriage.