13 responses

  1. David in the O.C.
    July 3, 2013

    It’s been a long day, and I’m kind of in a snarky mood, so here goes…

    Considering that Ms. Horseface is probably married to the barnyard animal of her choice, I’m not sure why she’s having an issue with same-sex couples getting married.

    Yeah, I do think she’s abusing her position, and should be sanctioned for it. You don’t treat other human beings this way. (Unless you want to call them ‘horseface’, of course. Then all bets are off.)

  2. TomTallis
    July 3, 2013

    In California that takes place at the county level where it belongs. The couple to be married fills out an application for the person of their choice to officiate, they submit it to the marriage license bureau, they pay a fee (there’s always that), it’s routinely approved for a specific date, time, and, of course couple. That’s it.

  3. Lindoro Almaviva
    July 3, 2013

    and if it was MY marriage, that poor excuse for the word human would find herself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for discrimination. This is inexcusable and discriminatory.

  4. timbo
    July 3, 2013

    All it will take is one law suite and this situation will be taken care of….the RI voters can take care of the second part in the next election.

  5. jpeckjr
    July 3, 2013

    I find it truly odd, although perhaps an aspect of being a smaller state, that the Legislature makes this decision. As TomTallis noted, in California, it’s done at the county level.

    It’s time for the Democrats in the State Senate to remove her as President. Contempible really is the word.

  6. revchicoucc
    July 3, 2013

    Here’s my advice to those 11 same-sex couples: find someone who is authorized by statute to make the actual proclamation of your wedding: “By the power vested in me by the State of Rhode Island . . .” and to sign the marriage license. Have your chosen solemnizer preside over the rest of the ceremony. If I lived there, I’d volunteer to do this for any same-sex couple whose request is treated this way by the legislature — I’m a United Church of Christ minister and I am so authorized by law.

    I might even add, “I now pronounce you partners for life, and irritants to the Senate President.” But only with your permission!

  7. Mark
    July 4, 2013

    The authorizations ultimately were approved, just before the Senate adjourned–but that didn’t make the segregation any less tacky.

    Two senators (the majority leader and the fanatically anti-gay Harold Metts) voted against the motion.

  8. Bose in St. Peter MN
    July 4, 2013

    Good to know that some elected officials have no problem getting down in the dirt to make their attempted condemnation of gays personal. I’m curious whether Ruggerio & Metts are on record voting against officiants chosen by other couples they disagree with, like maybe Muslims or Scientologists.

  9. Ben
    July 4, 2013

    I find the whole idea odd. In Colorado (and one or two other states), marriages can be self-executed, like any other contract. I officiated my sisters wedding, but signed the license as a witness (and even witness are optional, I believe.)

  10. Zack
    July 4, 2013

    Some of you might remember the former governor of Rhode Island Donald Carcieri whom among other things vetoed a bill allowing gay couples to claim their loved ones bodies.
    His bigotry and partnership with NOM helped hide the fact he wasn’t the biggest obstacle to marriage equality in RI.
    That would go to Paiva Weed who was able to use him as a cover until he left office and still blocked marriage equality (don’t let the throw us a bone civil unions vote fool you) until she was forced to.
    This is her final act of defience towards us.
    There has been talk she might want to run for Congress or the Senate someday.
    Keep her bigoted history in mind and don’t fall for the D next to her name.

  11. Richard Rush
    July 4, 2013

    I wouldn’t feel safe near that woman unless she were wearing a muzzle.

  12. Phil
    July 4, 2013

    In FL and some other states, any notary public can sign off on the license. It is, after all, at it’s most basic level a contract, and the notary only verifies the identity of those signing it and their eligibility to execute a legal contract. Essentially the signatories execute the contract themselves.

  13. jpeckjr
    July 5, 2013

    All this time we have been using the civil and human rights argument to advocate for marriage equality, I have wondered what might have happened if we had approached it from a civil contract perspective. Two persons of the same gender can execute any other civil contract. Why is this civil contract singled out for a restriction on gender?

    I do not dispute that marriage is a particular kind of contract as defined by law. Just wondering how, under contract law concepts, it is singled out.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop