We read:
"The protests started as soon as Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox sounded the death knell for gay marriage legislation and said he'd back civil unions instead. A cop-out, gay marriage supporters said. A compromise for no one. One man made a sign proclaiming, "Fox Hunting Season is Open."
For the first openly gay House speaker in the nation, the protests were personal. But Fox, who sold ice cream to pay his way through law school and who cites Winston Churchill as a role model, knows something about persevering. About taking the long view. And about counting votes.
He explains his decision on the vote as a calculated move designed to get gay couples real rights today. While he may have had the votes to get the measure through the House, the measure faced a battle in the Senate, where Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed opposed gay marriage but has indicated support for civil unions.
The measure would allow gay couples to enter into civil unions that grant all of the state rights and benefits given to married couples in Rhode Island. The full House could vote on the measure as early as Thursday.
Fox lives with his mother just a few miles from where he grew up. He's been in a committed relationship for years. He's known as a fast-talking, skillful debater and crafty politician.
Source
10 comments:
If the only difference is in calling the same legal relationship a "marriage" or a "civil union", then I think the state or country concerned should have one form of legal union for any pair of legal adults not already in such a union; and then if the couple also concerned want a religious marriage or some other form of marriage as well, they would of course be free to have one too, if it is made available to them, but it would have no further legal standing.
This has been the problem all along. Call the legal procedure one thing and if you want to have a religious ceremony go to someone else to get married. Stop forcing religious organizations to perform a ceremony required to get civil union status. They should be separate.
To expand upon Anonymous @12:51, get marriage out of the tax code as well, ie no more head of household, married filing jointly, etc... Drop deductions for dependents. Cut tax rates enough and the loss of these social planning preferences will not matter. What we refer to as marriage should become a legally binding contract with sections, paragraphs, sub-paragraphs. The state can provide a standard basic framework contract that can be amended or couples can write their own. The contract is approved by a court and is enforced by the legal system, no different from any other legal contract between entities. Once this is done, the state is no longer in the business of favoring one type of relationship over another.
That radical gay activists will reject the civil union offer (as they always do) proves once again that this battle they're waging is not about marriage at all. It's about being legislated into a special class of citizen with rights and protections above and beyond those enjoyed by the rest of us.
3:44 I don't follow your logic - if "gays" had the same legal marriage as everyone else, how is that a special right beyond anyone else?
There is at least one problem with making marriage equivalent to merely a civil contract...
Courts are generally opposed to enforcing contracts for personal services and will tend to refuse performance of the same. This also means that fault and damages will be introduced into personal relationships where many places do not consider fault in divorce.
Anonymous 4:50 said...
"3:44 I don't follow your logic - if "gays" had the same legal marriage as everyone else, how is that a special right beyond anyone else?"
Are you married? Did congress pass special legislation "ordering" the whole country to recognize, honor, and agree with your marriage?
Homosexuals already have equality in marriage. They have all the same rights and restrictions as everyone else. People cannot marry their children, brothers and sisters cannot marry each other. There is a minimum age for marriage. Homsexuals want special privileges and special rewards for participating in abnormal, repugnant, and anti-social sexual activities.
"Homsexuals want special privileges and special rewards for participating in abnormal, repugnant, and anti-social sexual activities."
And why is it your business? How does it affect you personally? Why the hell do you care? I find you repugnant. Hopefully you will be gone after May 21st.
Some people thought it was repugnant that blacks should be allowed to marry whites, and there were laws to ensure it; but such bigotry was overcome and marriage laws were extended to allow it. One day the law will allow any two legal adults to marry, and that would be an extension of equality.
Post a Comment