News From the General Assembly

It’s always been a secret ambition of mine to one day have an office on Smith Hill…preferably the one the governor uses…so now and then I like to poke my nose into the goings on under the rotunda of the State House. Of course everyone is focused on the economy and the budget and the shortfalls that seem to never be met without one side asking for concessions while the other side says, “No way!” But there are other topics of debate that fly under the radar and may get a small mention in the liberal print media.

I’m talking about another round of the gay marriage debate. Now this has been going on for about 10-12 years and if this was a prize fight, with a continuous beat down being dealt to an opponent, over the course of 10 to 12 rounds, the participant would more than likely falter and accept defeat…you’d expect. But the opposite is happening. With each passing legislative session, support for gay marriage has been gaining steam. I have for my say that it’s not a case of increased support for gay marriage, but rather a decrease in the voice of the opposition…namely conservative Christians.

Case in point. Several years ago I attended a rally at the State House in support of marriage between one man and one woman. While we were there, there was one person picketing the rally by quietly holding up a sign reading, “Born gay.” The sad thing is that his silent protest made more noise than ours (figuratively). At this rally, we numbered MAYBE 200, the best I can remember now. Contrast that to the tens of thousands who will crowd the streets for a gay pride parade in Providence.

Think about that point in this context: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has the percent of Americans who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual at 2.5% of the population of the United States. There’s no way that the majority of the supporters during a gay pride parade are homosexual or bisexual. It just doesn’t compute. Not only that, but why is it that the extremely small minority (2.5%) are reeking havoc in the courts and general assemblies all over New England?

Here’s my concern. Governor Carcieri has already gone on record saying he supports a referendum allowing the people (voters) to decide how to define marriage. I’d like to see it become an amendment to the state constitution. The problem with introducing bills to become law (which I’ll get more into in a moment) is that the constitutionality of the law will be brought before the judicial branch and, as seen in other states, the law may be deemed unconstitutional. This is the back door that the MINORITY uses to get their agenda passed. The courts will oppose a law they claim unconstitutional and then will dictate to the legislature in that particular state how to change the law, which is not the job of the courts. I’d like to see the vacant Supreme Court seats be filled by the governor with judges who will take a stand against these rogue groups who want to change the intent of God’s creative process to fit their own version.

With literally a handful of Republicans in the General Assembly, and a few moderate Democrats that fight for the sanctity of marriage along with them, the opportunity for passage of gay marriage is not too far down the road. Kathy Kushner is a member of a group that lobbies for the passage of gay marriage and she’s confident that the “tide is absolutely turning” in favor of gay marriage. Her optimism is only validated by a recent poll reported on in the Providence Journal that shows that right now, about 49% of Rhode Island voters support gay marriage contrasted to only 37% who oppose it. Well, 49 + 37 = 86% that stood for or against the issue. What about the other 14% not accounted for?

Are these 14% undecided? Are they ambivalent to the debate? Or worse yet, have they developed a type of learned helplessness that makes them feel the need to give up the fight because it’s not worth the effort. It’s probably a combination of all three scenarios. And if it is a case of not wanting to fight against the rising tide of the opposition, why give up and retreat when we have been winning all this time? Why is it that year after year the gay community can get defeated with each legislative session and come back the next year stronger and with more resolve? Yet we cower.

Now, I’m not the most courageous person when it comes to standing up and articulating my argument in the face of strong opposition. In fact, in college I was going to join the debate team but got talked out of it. So I’m not going to use this time to say we need to march ourselves up to the State House and go on the record during an open public hearing. However, we can write letters and we can also go to a hearing and submit a written statement to be entered in to the record without having to make a public speech. Because there are a few bills out there that we need to review to know what they mean and whether we should write our assemblymen in support of these bills.

Here is a listing of the bills we SHOULD NOT support:

1. H-7711 (Rep. McCauley, Providence): This bill would “recognize domestic partners and would clearly define the class of persons covered by the parental and family medical leave act. As of 5-7-2008 it has been set aside for further study.

2. H-7939 (Rep. Fox, Providence): This bill would recognize same-sex marriages that were obtained in other states that recognize same-sex marriages and allow these “couples” to legally divorce in Rhode Island. As of 5-7-2008 it was scheduled for a hearing and/or consideration.

3. H-7839 (Rep. Handy, Cranston): This bill was introduced in the hopes to broaden the definition of people eligible to marry to include persons of the same gender. As of 5-7-2008 it was set aside for further study.

However, there are bills being introduced by both House and Senate assemblymen to protect the sanctity of marriage and these are the ones we SHOULD support:

1. S-2729 (Sen. Blais, Coventry): This bill, introduced in the Senate would prohibit same-sex marriages in the state and would prohibit the state from recognizing a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage. As of 2-26-2008, it was sent to the Senate Judiciary for further processing.

2. H-8017 (Rep. Brien, Woonsocket): This bill would introduce legislation to allow the voters a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman and would thereby nullify all other civil unions or domestic partnerships between same-sex “couples.” As of 5-7-2008, the committee agreed to hold the matter for further study.

As you can see, the latest results from a search of ri.gov lists all of these as pending bills without resolution as yet. Some are apparently still stuck in committee pending “further study.” But that’s good. The longer it takes, the more time we have to write our state reps and senators and ask them to do the right thing, and the right thing is to support the traditional definition of marriage to be between one woman and one man.

The homosexual lifestyle is sinful, immoral, and unnatural. Bishop Tobin of the Diocese of Providence made this statement that drew the ire of same-sex supporters: “Contrary to the assertions of others, this is not an issue of civil rights. Freedom is not unbridled license. In short, there’s never a right to do something wrong. The fact that two adults consent to an action doesn’t make it morally right or socially acceptable. After all, two consenting adults can engage in drug use, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy, or other immoral activities.”

This brings up another big point. This marriage debate is only the top of the slippery slope. If homosexuals get equal standing with respect to marriage, then we’ll soon see other acts of deviance being sought. Bestiality, which is actually legal in some states, could be the next fight. That may sound far-fetched, but this one isn’t. How about refusing to marry a same-sex couple if it becomes legal. Pastors may be fined or jailed for discrimination. What about preaching against homosexuality? If gays are given equal status with marriage definitions, they can be protected under new hate crime legislation, which has already happened in a handful of cases.

Here are a few examples of where the slippery slope will go if same-sex marriage passes. The following were reported in an article in the Providence Journal just last week:

1. A Christian photographer had to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs because she refused to photograph a same-sex “couple’s” commitment ceremony.

2. A Georgia psychologist was fined for refusing to counsel a lesbian having relationship troubles.

3. The State Supreme Court in California barred infertility doctors from invoking their religious rights in refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient.

4. At UCLA School of Law a Christian student group barred membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriages.

Incidentally, the terms mother/father or husband/wife have already been replaced on some forms in California by the terms Party-A and Party-B. That’s just a foreshadowing of dark times to come if we lose the battle. So over the next week, I’ll develop a template to use that you can download and mail or e-mail your assemblyman to show your support for the bills preserving the sanctity of marriage. Here’s a link to the e-mail address and information for all members of the Rhode Island House and Senate:

The State of Rhode Island General Assembly (House)

The State of Rhode Island General Assembly (Senate)

I will be following up with an e-mail to Senator Blais to get the most recent updates on these and other bills coming down the pike, and, I will in turn extend that information to you in the future as I get them.