January 11, 2013 – RI Future

January 11, 2013January 11, 2013

POTUS Weighs In On RI Marriage Equality Bill

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

President Obama makes his case for re-election at DNC. (Photo by John McDaid)

A political heavy hitter has weighed in on marriage equality in Rhode Island – and I don’t mean Bishop Tobin. The Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper in Washington D.C. asked President Barack Obama specifically about the Ocean State’s effort to end marriage discrimination and here’s the response White House spokesperson Shin Inouye gave The Blade:

“While the President does not weigh in on every measure being considered by the states, he believes all couples should be treated fairly and equally, with dignity and respect,” said White House spokesperson Shin Inouye. “As he has said, his personal view is that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so.”

The Blade said it was a similar response as Obama gave to a question about a marriage equality bill before the Illinois legislature, which was the first time the president weighed in on marriage rights at the state level.

Here on the home front, we reported earlier today that Episcopal Bishop Patrick Knisely is instituting procedural changes in the church to allow for same sex sacraments. The Providence Journal reports that Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin disagrees with how Chafee would like to proceed with marriage equality; the bishop told the governor that the voters should decide the law.

Rev. Gene Dyszlewski posted to RI Future today about why he disagrees with Bishop Tobin, writing, “What is a matter of concern for me is that he seems to be asking that the Catholic understanding of marriage be enshrined into civil law in Rhode Island. Not a good idea.”

January 11, 2013January 11, 2013

A Religious Proponent For Marriage Equality

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As the chairperson of a coalition of religious leaders inRhode Islandwho favor marriage equality, I find myself in conversation about marriage being about love, commitment, nurturing and soul building. Discourse in the context of religious diversity gives rise to a considerable appreciation for religious liberty and the freedom of conscience.

America, with its constitutional principle of separation of church and state, is a wonderful and safe place to walk life’s journey with integrity and conviction. But, diversity among religious leaders implies difference may occur on just about anything. And so it does, particularly when I read Bishop Tobin’s recent statement on marriage equality.

Without question I disagree with the bishop’s position on marriage equality. The Bishop addresses the issue of marriage from a Catholic perspective and I hold a Protestant view. The Bishop has a right and a duty to teach the merits of Catholic dogma to Catholics. Catholics may wish to engage him in that discussion. What is a matter of concern for me is that he seems to be asking that the Catholic understanding of marriage be enshrined into civil law in Rhode Island. Not a good idea.

To be sure, the State’s understanding of marriage has never been totally consistent with the restrictive concept of marriage held by the Catholic Church. For example, it is not a requirement for civil marriage in Rhode Island that couples produce children. Divorce and remarriage has always been allowed. This has posed no more a threat to Catholic religious liberty than same-sex marriage will. It is and always will be up to each church to decide who to marry based upon their beliefs.Rhode Islandcan’t protect religious freedom by becoming a theocracy; it is only by remaining a secular civil society that religious freedom is safe.

In his admonition against same-sex marriage, the bishop makes numerous bald declarations with nothing to substantiate his claims. These alleged problems are believed to be known to those who regularly visit his column. Since I am not a frequent flyer, I can only raise concerns with the allegations that he actually makes.

Emblematic of the bishop’s thinking is his struggle with modernity. One example is his appeal to natural law theory. It sounds authoritative but such medieval thinking pales in the face of the informative weight of contemporary behavioral science. However, science is evidence based and invites critical thinking, neither of which appears to be consistent with the bishop’s arguments. There is not a single note of awareness of any contemporary science based understanding of homosexuality. In addition, the use of the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” is dismissive of the complexity and psychodynamic nature human sexuality.

Modernity requires recognition that today we live in a science based, pluralistic, secular society. Diversity abounds. Each of us may formulate and act upon our own beliefs. However, it is not okay to require others to be governed by laws deduced from our own religious convictions.

For Marriage Equality advocates there is a totally different conversation. No one is asking anyone to stop believing anything. No one is trying to redefine anything. Even the heady vision of a more just society falls short of the basic ask: respect. People just want to be treated as people. Gay and lesbian couples want to marry for the same reasons straight couples do. – to demonstrate their love and commitment to each other. Allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to get married does not change the meaning of marriage. What defines marriage is love, commitment, and the ability to nurture and protect your family.

Marriage equality is necessary:

Marriage equality improves the lives of thousands of people
Marriage equality restores legal rights and privileges for numerous couples
Marriage equality strengthens the social fabric of our community.
Marriage equality harms no one.
Marriage equality is unquestionably the right thing to do.

The Rev. Eugene T. Dyszlewski

Chair, Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality

Ordained Minister, UnitedChurchofChrist

Community Minister for Social Justice, 1^stUnitarianChurchProvidence

January 11, 2013January 13, 2013

Regionalization Difficulties

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

You can see Warwick from the top of EG Town Hall but the two have not been able to work out regionalized fire dispatch after three years of working on it. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Regionalization is one of those issues in Rhode Island that many people talk about but never seems to move forward.

In a recent GoLocalProv article URI professor Ed Mazze suggests again that the state should regionalize along its five counties. But Warwick Mayor Scott Avedesian explained to RIPR Political Roundtable this morning why it’s easier said than done.

“When it comes down to the details everyone gets very territorial and no one wants to give at all,” he said. “In every county, there is someone that nobody wants.”

Mr. Avedesian would know; a three year effort to regionalize fire dispatch services with East Greenwich just recently fell apart, East Greenwich Patch reports this morning.

Regionalization presents some serious obstacles for Rhode Island, which along with Connecticut, is one of two states in the nation with no form of county government, according to the last U.S. Census of Governments. As noted in GoLocal, Sen. Louis DiPalma (D — Little Compton, Middletown, Newport, Tiverton) is working on legislation this session that would, in theory, alleviate some of the obstacles.

Perhaps if the General Assembly was to offer incentives to cities and towns for regionalization it could get them to voluntarily associate along geographical closeness or cultural similarity. The state should not to regionalize based solely on county lines drawn in the 17th century when Rhode Island was entirely different than today.

Such an incentive for voluntary association will still have to be powerful, but it’s possible. For instance the GoLocal article places regionalization in a context of property taxes. But the recession, combined with the cuts to state aid, forced municipalities to raise property taxes (as the article points out).

Restoring that aid as a condition for consolidating services across municipal lines could see our state’s communities become much more willing participants. Offering a loan or other funding mechanism for getting services in line with each other might also see communities more willing to participate.

Furthermore, an unsaid issue is that “efficiency” and “cost-saving” often means job loss. We need to make sure our police and fire departments are either protected from that, or else there’s something waiting for anyone who has to be let go due to redundancy.

A part of consolidating services is to break beyond lines on the map in exchange for fiscal sense. If we remain trapped in a 17th Century mindset about the importance of our vestigial counties, look for regionalization to be a troublesome road, filled with issues of geography and suburban-urban clashes.

January 11, 2013January 11, 2013

Lose the Lever

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rhode Island is one of only 15 states left that still offers the option of party-line voting, and the only state in the Northeast. It appears as if 2013 will see a renewed and strengthened effort to remove this vestigial electoral organ. Ken Block is leading a petition drive to push the issue. [You can sign the petition here: http://www.masterlever.org/]

Block is not alone in this fight. Already 24 of the state’s 39 municipalities have passed resolutions calling on the State House to get rid of the master lever. Additionally, good government groups from across the political spectrum are in favor of requiring each voter to vote for every office on the ballot separately.

I can’t say with confidence that taking away the lazy option of voting for a straight party ticket with the single stroke of marker will lead to voters becoming more educated about each race, but I do know that it can’t hurt. Because our ballots are simple to understand and our vote tallying machines are quick and clean, I also can’t see any benefit to keeping the option.

Thus by abolishing the master lever anachronism, we risk nothing and stand to gain at least a somewhat better informed electoral process. What are we waiting for?

Sign today.

January 11, 2013January 11, 2013

New Episcopal Bishop Embraces Marriage Equality

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rev. Nicholas Knisely, the new bishop of the Episcopal Church in Rhode Island, supports marriage equality and plans to change current local policy to allow priests here to bless same sex unions. He announced the decision in December at the Diocesan Convention just 14 days after starting his new job here in Rhode Island.

“I am going to give permission, indeed I have already done so in one case for a couple desiring a ceremony later this month,” he said, . “But my giving of this permission represents a significant change in policy for the Diocese of Rhode Island. While Bishop Wolf did vote in favor of the blessing liturgies at General Convention, she did not allow such services to take place.”

Knisely said he was going to work with a task force to “create guidelines for use by congregations in the diocese who wish to offer this pastoral office to their members.”

There are a few questions that need to be decided. How do we make the decision that a parish would like to offer this ministry? I would strongly urge, in fact I have already required, that the vestry or bishop’s committee pass a resolution expressing their support of the offering of blessings to be communicated, along with a letter from the rector or priest in charge, before the first blessing takes place. No priest is required to perform a blessing service, and the legislation enacted at General Convention was very clear that there must be no penalty for a member of the clergy who’s conscience will not allow them to do so.

A spokeswoman, Ruth Meteer for Knisely said he will be issuing a press release next week to clarify his and the church’s position. He is meeting with the dioceses’ standing committee on Tuesday, where they will discuss the church’s position on marriage equality.

She said he has received several media inquiries. Knisely met earlier in the week with Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, of the First Unitarian Church in Providence and chair of the Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality, who described their conversation as “positive.”

Earlier this week more than 100 religious leaders spoke out in support of marriage equality and Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin reaffirmed his opposition.