March 27, 2013

Tobin Urges State To Wait 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

Marriage Equality in Rhode Island is going to happen.

The forces fighting against the rising tide of love and equality are starting to realize this. Yesterday election forecasting wunderkind Nate Silver had a piece in the New York Times that crunched the numbers and came to a conclusion that should give pause to opponents: marriage equality is almost certain to be the law of the land in the United States by 2020.

Knowing that this battle cannot be won leaves opponents of marriage equality with nothing but tactics that will delay the inevitable. Hence today’s press release from Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese. Tobin knows that society is moving past his medieval views on the subject one way or the other. Nate Silver demonstrates that merely the turnover in population is enough to make the acceptance of gay marriage inevitable as the older generation is replaced with its younger, more tolerant descendants. No one needs to change their minds on the issue for marriage equality to eventually dominate public opinion.

Tobin said:

In light of the historic deliberations of the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, it would be appropriate for the General Assembly of Rhode Island to defer any action on this critical issue for the time being. Any legislative action that is taken now could very well be rendered completely null and void by the decision of the Supreme Court expected this June. It is likely that the Supreme Court will decide this matter for us, one way or another. Let’s wait to see what the highest court of the land says about this issue which is so very important to many Rhode Islanders.

Asking the General Assembly to put the issue off until the Supreme Court decides the case this summer essentially scuttles the bill. If the Supreme Court were to issue a wide ruling making marriage equality the law nationwide, perhaps little would be lost. But the Court might decide to narrowly rule on Prop 8, limiting the decision to California, which effectively delays marriage equality in Rhode Island for another year.

That’s right, another year of State House rallies, all night House and Senate Judiciary Committee meetings rehashing the same arguments from both sides of the issue, and more division and hostility in our state.

Here is the response from Rev. Gene Dyszlewski, chair of the Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality:

With all due respect to His Excellency, neither case before the Supreme Court has any bearing on the decision of the General Assembly to make marriage available to all loving, committed couples in Rhode Island,” said Rev. Dyszlewski. “This is another in a long string of delay tactics — seeking to stall the strong momentum of marriage equality legislation — by those who oppose allowing all families to access the dignity and respect of marriage. The fact is, no decision issued by the Court will render ‘null and void’ any state legislature’s ability to grant the freedom to marry to all its citizens.

“We respect the Senate process, and are appreciative the Judiciary Committee is continuing to consider the testimony from last week’s unprecedented 12-hour long hearing. We are still engaging in thoughtful and productive conversations with all members of the Senate.

“This is a holy week for many Rhode Islanders, as we gather around Seder tables and paschal candles. I, for one, will pray for our elected leaders in the General Assembly, that they may hear God’s call to love one another, as He loves us.”

Tobin made some news a couple of weeks ago when he came out in favor of Senator Ciccone’s bill that would put the issue on the ballot. Once again, Tobin seeks only to delay the inevitable. The bill could not be placed on the ballot until the next election, and even if the bill were to pass, Tobin promises to “vigorously oppose efforts to redefine the institution of marriage in Rhode Island.”

Let’s face it, Tobin won’t change his mind on this issue by popular vote. The vigorous opposition may come in the form of judicial challenges that might delay the implementation of marriage quality for many more years, or with the endless introduction of bills that might seek to impose limits on same-sex marriage.

An honest player in public debate presents his or her case earnestly and forcibly, depending on the process to arrive at the best possible outcome. Gaming the system with last minute bills to place the issue on the ballot or suggesting the issue be tabled pending a Supreme Court decision is simply political theater calculated to stymie and delay the process to the detriment of everyone.

This issue demands a clean up or down vote from the Senate.

March 27, 2013April 10, 2013

A Glimpse Into The Future 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

Dateline: June, 2023.

Governor Frank Ferri is headlining a small event at the State House celebrating the 10th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA and California’s bad on gay marriage. Gov. Ferri gives a brief statement commemorating the occassion, and the handful of activists who fought so hard for equality here a decade ago offer him some subdued applause, and then everyone moves on to more pressing matters of the day.

A cub reporter for Cumulus RI (which ceased being known as WPRO shortly after Ron St. Pierre was let go) asks a veteran Providence Journal reporter what the governor is going on about. “Gay marriage,” Kathy Gregg growls at the newbie.

What about it, thought the recent graduate of the University in Rhode Island? The 22-year-old vaguely remembers when the 501c4 group the Coalition of Payday Loan Sharks for Bibilical Dogma tried to make it an issue when Ferri first ran for governor … but John DePetro was the only member of the media to even mention it, and his show had long ago been pushed back to the 1 to 4 am slot.

The vendor who sells pizza at the State House notices the bewilderment in the Smith Hill rookie, and decides to confer some wisdom on the cub reporter.

“Hey kid,” he beckons. “I know no one cares anymore if people of the same gender fall in love and want to marry each other, but time was this was a big deal in this building. Unfortunately, we didn’t realize it wasn’t a big deal to anyone outside of this building other than a couple crazies who kept confusing their Bible with our Constitution.”

“What do you mean ‘we,'” inquires the cub reporter.

“I used to be a legislator here,” the pizza man proudly exclaims. “When my constituents voted me out of office, the Christian Caucus helped me get the exclusive contract to sell slices here on Smith Hill.”

“There used to be a Christian caucus!?!,” said the cub reporter, completely surprised that such a coalition could ever exist in modern American government. The reporter, born in 2001, had heard such rumors that politicians used to read from the Bible and that women couldn’t vote and even there were separate bathroom facilities for people whose ancestors were from different continents, but she had figured that had all happened during the dark ages of America.

“Sure,” said the pizza man. “And we were real powerful, too. We all got quickly voted out of office in 2014, but Monsignor Camenker made sure we all got good jobs in government.”

He gestures towards the Catholic Church’s well-known State House lobbyist/nun/lawyer.

“Take, for example, Sister Teresa,” the pizza man tells the cub reporter. “She never got to be a judge like she always wanted, and she didn’t get to take any credit for Newport’s booming wedding economy, but she’ll always have a place inside the State House sticking up for the church.”

March 27, 2013

Metts Opposes Marriage Equality On ‘Biblical Principles’

Judge Ronald R Lagueux, in his ruling in Ahlquist v. City of Cranston that removed the prayer banner from the walls of the auditorium at Cranston High School West, described the Cranston School Committee’s open meetings to discuss the prayer banner as at times having the tenor of “a religious revival.”

This is something those who have followed the testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the subject of Marriage Equality can understand as the debate seems to center not on issues of secular laws in a secular government, but on whether our laws should be based upon certain individual’s narrow understanding of Biblical law.

Senator Frank Lombardi, who served on the Cranston School Board during the Prayer Banner kerfuffle and was one of the prayer banner’s most vocal defenders, drew an active comparison to the issue of Marriage Equality and the issue of the Prayer Banner, as did several witnesses and Senator Harold Metts. Since that time in Cranston, no sense of doubt about the rightness of mixing church and state has entered Lombardi’s mind, despite Judge Lagueux’s reasoned and eloquent decision. Responding to the testimonies of Chris and Kara Young, Ronald L’Heureux and Michael Krzywonos at Thursday night’s hearing Lombardi said, “We can’t defrock ourselves of our religious beliefs.”

Ron L’Heureux, a minister with New Life Worship Center, has, according to Senator Metts, supplied him with fascinating historical material about the founding fathers and religious liberty. The problem is that L’Heureux is a follower of pseudo-historian David Barton, who has fabricated a false history of the United States recasting the founders as Christian ideologues intent on establishing some sort of Christian theocracy that is at best “tolerant” of dissenting religious opinions. L’Heureux closed his testimony by addressing Senator Lombardi directly, assuring him that L’Heureux has filed a brief in Ahlquist v Cranston to have Judge Lagueux’s decision overturned. That’s right, L’Heureux is still quixotically fighting the Cranston Prayer Banner issue.

Senator Metts is no fool. He waited until Governor Lincoln Chafee delivered his testimony, then, with the Governor fixed in his seat as a captive audience and the news cameras rolling in time for the six o’clock news, Metts went into his first long speech of the night. Right away, Metts brought up his religion, saying, “I’m a sinner saved by grace and I come before you with great humility.”

Those who value the separation of church and state and a secular society found themselves wondering what this could possibly have to do with the issue before the committee. The comments by Metts were not simply out of place, they were inappropriate.

Metts went on to say that he is undaunted by the calls and emails he has received over the years that refer to him as a religious bigot. He maintained that in America, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and to religious liberty. Not satisfied with talking up his religion, Metts challenged the very idea that Marriage Equality is a civil rights issue.

“Many in my community take exception to the gay rights activists that hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement as it pertains to African Americans. What I tell people is that I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to but I can’t change my color. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms can never be compared to what African Americans went through in slavery.”

As Katrina Chaves pointed out yesterday, in covering the Supreme Court hearing on California’s Prop 8, African American Pastor Rev. Bill Owens made the same sort of comparison at an anti gay marriage rally. Chaves concluded that, “engaging in ‘Oppression Olympics’ serves absolutely no one.”

Metts talked about the fall of Rome and Greece being due to “moral decay.” He mourned the loss of Ten Commandment displays and mandatory prayers in public schools. Metts also said that those who claim the Bible is outdated and no longer applies are committing, in his opinion, blasphemy.

“My main opposition to this bill,” said Metts, “is based on Biblical principles.”

When not striking a strident religious tone, Metts sometimes came off as strangely paranoid and loopy. “The nations that follow God’s word will be blessed and those who rejected it were cursed. Need I remind you of the Babylonian captivity in ancient Israel? I’ll probably be gone by then but I certainly don’t want my grandchildren to be taken into captivity in China or elsewhere.”

Not for the last time did Metts talked about the redeeming power of Jesus. At several points during the long night of testimony Metts would take the time to make long, digressive rambles about his religious convictions, at times holding up and reading directly from his Bible, which he assured us all he reads every morning and every night, every day of the year.

“Even if we live to be a hundred years old, we’re only on this side of eternity for a short time,” said Metts during one of his long digressions, “It’s the other side of eternity we should be concerned with.” Later in the same speech, Metts compared the battle over Marriage Equality to “a cosmic battle between God and Satan, and whether we like it or not, we’re part of it.”

An elected state Senator regaling the crowd with frankly childish mythologies about a cosmic battle between God and Satan for human souls in the context of a hearing about marriage equality should be worrisome enough for anyone concerned about liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state, but the most alarming moment came later when Senator Metts made the following comment to Senator Juan Pichardo, a supporter of Marriage Equality:

“Senator Pichardo, we’re good buddies, and [marriage equality] is probably the only issue we disagree on. The problems you cited in society, the problem is that the further we move away from this [Metts held up his Bible] the more problems you’re going to see. When you align with scripture, that’s when you see things get a little bit better.”

Metts might disagree with Pichardo on the issue of equality, but in calling for a theocratic form of government based on the Bible instead of our current system of secular democracy Metts is demonstrating a disagreement with the entire system of American government and the oath he took to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn into office.

What is the difference, aside from the title of the book involved, between Metts’ view of a government based on his Bible and a fundamentalist Muslim advocating for Sharia law? One answer is that Metts can get elected as a Christian fundamentalist, but no Muslim with comparable views would stand a chance. Recall that Metts considers denigrating the Bible to be blasphemy. The Biblical punishment for blasphemy is death.

Can Metts really want our society to align with Biblical scripture? Such an idea is barbaric.

Later, after listening to a story from Jen Saarinen, a concerned high school teacher worried that feelings of inferiority might take hold in LGBTQ students concerned about their second class status as citizens in a state without Marriage Equality, and about the effects of bullying on LGBTQ teens, Metts claimed that as an educator with 31 years of experience, he felt the rules of the school protected everyone, and though he had to protect many students, they “really never had that problem back then.” That problem being LGBTQ kids being bullied.

This of course, is a classic tactic in the fight against rules in public schools that add sexual preference and gender identification to race, religion, disability and other identifiers of diversity that need to be protected against bigotry and bullying. Brian Camenker of MassResistance, a friend and ally of Metts, constantly rails against new codes that might protect LGBTQ students.

Metts’ solution to the problem of bullying is as predictable as it is fatuous. “I wonder if there’s a correlation to when they took the Ten Commandments out of public buildings. I wonder if there’s a correlation when they took prayer out of the schools. I wonder if there’s a correlation as we try to remove God from his creation that we had the Columbine and the other tragedies. So these are some of the things that I see.” Metts added that he has seen kids in schools “chastised for their religious beliefs, and that shouldn’t happen either.” Metts provided no examples of the ongoing bullying that Christian kids receive in schools, or any evidence that Christian kids are on the receiving end of more bullying than LGBTQ kids.

In my own testimony before the committee I tried to make the point that religious concerns are incidental to the question at hand. Marriage equality is a secular issue, and all questions as to whether it violates someone’s religious beliefs are beside the point. I said that the ideas that “homosexuality is an abomination” or that “marriage equality is God’s will” are unimportant. The two positions not only talk at cross-purposes and to no avail, but to a Humanist/atheist like myself the two positions are equally nonsensical.

Metts replied to my testimony by completely missing my point. Metts proceeded to read the Bible to me, specifically the Gospel of Matthew 14:4-5. I wonder if Metts would have thought it appropriate to read from his holy book if someone declared their Jewish or other non-Christian beliefs? In point of fact, Metts avoided going after any other non-Christians directly. Metts reserved his highhanded Christian authoritarianism for the first person who identified as an atheist. This is in itself a form of Christian privilege and bullying, the kind that Metts denies happens in public schools.

Metts is an active supporter of the Faith Alliance, a group I have identified time and again as being at least in part an anti-LGBTQ hate group due to its inclusion of Brian Camenker’s MassResistance. Metts named checked the Faith Alliance as he complemented Pastor David Rodriguez, one of the architects of the group. I’m sure Metts sees the Faith Alliance as operating without hate, and would certainly repudiate the views of Brian Camenker if given the chance. On the other hand, here’s a photo of Metts and Camenker taken during the ant-Marriage Equality Rally back in January. They seem like good friends.

Though it did not seem like it at the time, perhaps I affected Metts with my testimony after all, as an hour after I left the building he brought me up in a rambling, nearly incoherent eight minute long religious sermon. Metts’ speech was a blatant and embarrassing display of Senatorial privilege and religious entitlement. Referring to the written testimony I handed in, Metts said:

“The Humanist/atheist said that maybe there’s 37% of the population classify themselves as nonbelievers. Well I’m not surprised by that because what happened was that they took the Ten Commandments out of the school they took the prayers out of the school and if you’re a Christian kid in school today, you’re chastised… If anybody is chastised, it’s Christians!“

Playing off the testimony of another speaker, Metts continued, “You know, the whole notion of looking to government to justify sin, that resonated because we’re all sinners. We know that.”

Then, in case anyone was wondering how Deacon Metts became so expert in the minutia of God’s will and the truth of his particular form of Christianity, Metts kindly explained:

“As far as knowing God’s word, how I know God’s word is, I study it. Bible study. I’ve got a guide in the back of my Bible. I start January 1st, the Old Testament in the morning and the New Testament at night and at the end of the year I’ve read the whole Bible. I’ve been doing it for years.”

Just to be clear, this lesson on religion was paid for by Rhode Island taxpayers, on Rhode Island taxpayers’ time.

Metts believes that when he needs to know something, “God will reveal it to me in scripture.”

Metts then went on to make his second impassioned case for Jesus Christ. “When we accept Christ we are all indwelled by the Holy Spirit and if we tap into that power, that’s how we interpret scripture…. The whole goal of reading scripture is to become Christ-like… God loves the sinner but he hates the sinner, and the only way we can get that sin off of us is to accept Jesus.”

Metts ended his tirade with more than a tinge of paranoia. “Up in Canada, with the hate speech, if I read scripture against homosexuals, I could end up in jail. So now everything came out the closet, and they’re trying to put the Christians in the closet. I’m not going in the closet for no one.”

Twice during the long night of testimony Metts attempted to make a comment in response to a witness, and then shut down the witnesses’ ability to respond. The first time came when he was speaking to Jen Saarinen, the High School teacher concerned with LGBTQ bullying, and the second time was to John Reilly, an Evangelical who apologized for the behavior of some of the Christians opposed to Marriage Equality. The video shows Metts angrily and unsuccessfully trying to get Committee Chair Michael McCaffrey to stop Reilly from talking back to him. These assertions of Senatorial privilege, even though in both cases Metts was unable to silence the witnesses, is unfortunate in a country and state that values freedom of expression.

John Reilly was far from the only person to counter the views of Metts in his testimony. Rabbi Barry Dolinger, the youngest Rabbi in the Rhode Island, representing an Orthodox Judaism that firmly rejects homosexual marriage, nonetheless believes that marriage equality is a secular issue. Just as he does not want laws passed that would restrict his ability to practice his faith the way he sees fit, so does he also understand the necessity of allowing people of other faiths (and no faith) to practice (or not practice) as they see fit.

Rabbi Dolinger strongly supports marriage equality, taking a brave stance for true religious liberty and liberty of conscience, one that Senator Metts and other conservative Christian leaders (including Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Catholic Diocese) should take note of.

Dolinger pointed out that his people have been the historical victims of religious persecution for centuries, culminating in the holocaust, but he also pointed out what many might see as lesser slights against his people. Dolinger explained that his parents were forced to pray Christian prayers when they went to public schools. These would be the same sort of Christian prayer that Senator Lombardi fought so hard for when he was on the Cranston School Committee and Senator Metts laments the removal of.

Rabbi Dolinger rebuked Metts directly with the following passage from his testimony:

“I don’t want to believe anything that anyone wants me to believe. If I did that I’d have to be a Catholic in the State of Rhode Island and have to do all sorts of other things but I’m not! I don’t believe in Jesus, and I’m not gonna. And I don’t want anybody telling me I’m going to do that, so I’m not going to tell anyone else that because I wouldn’t marry them that they can’t get married.”

Rabbi Dolinger closed his powerful and compelling testimony by reading from George Washington’s letter to the Touro Synagogue. Washington, in describing not only the United States but also Rhode Island’s key place within the Union said that our government “to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance- but generously afford(s) to all Liberty of conscience and immunities of Citizenship.”

Many took Senator Metts and other Christian and Catholic fundamentalists to task for their intransigence on the issue, including Reverend Gene Dyszlewski, Reverend Duane Clinker, Rabbi Amy Levin, Rabbi Peter Stein and more. The clerics offered a mix of religious and secular arguments, and presented a welcome counterpoint to the intolerant drumbeat of Senator Metts, Pastors like Jay Stirnemann who stunned the crowd when he told Senator Stephen Archambault, “You don’t know God, sir!” and the omnipresent Father Healey, lobbyist for the Providence Catholic Diocese.

The downside of this kind of debate within the chambers of the State House is gives the false impression that the State House is the place for this kind of debate.

It is not.

Certainly it is difficult for people to leave their deeply held religious convictions at the door when entering into government service, but if, as Frank Lombardi maintained, you cannot “defrock yourself” of these beliefs or as Metts later claimed, “I don’t know if I can separate myself from my religion. I cannot cut myself in half” then perhaps government service is beyond the abilities of some people.

At one point in the long night of testimony Senator (or should I call him Deacon?) Metts quoted Jesus as having said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s” to which conservative Pastor Jay Stirnemann said, “I pay my taxes.”

Isn’t it amazing that Jesus, who spoke in parables that are interpreted and reinterpreted and used to justify any manner of beliefs, in this one case was speaking quite clearly only on tax law? Is it not possible that Jesus was explaining that there is a natural separation between Caesar (government) and God (religion)?

Even Rabbi Dolinger gets this, and he’s never gonna believe in Jesus.

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013

Hodges Addresses Gender Inequality In Insurance

It’s hard to imagine that in the year 2013 women still have to deal with inequality in the workplace.

Their wages are typically lower for the same level of education and expertise than their male counterparts, but this inequality does not stop at the pay check. Women also pay much higher premiums for their health insurance coverage, so, in addition to making less money, they’re forced to pay out more in insurance premiums.

This is a practice known in the insurance business as gender rating.

While the Affordable Health Care Act will eventually make gender rating illegal, some 14 states across the country including California, New Jersey and New York, have taken steps to ban or cap gender rating in the individual insurance market. Some local lawmakers would like to add The Biggest Little to that list.

A bill (S201) sponsored by Senators Sosnowski, Miller , Nesselbush, Cool-Rumsey, and Gallo would prohibit insurance providers in Rhode Island from charging women of child-bearing age higher premiums than men. This is the third time that similar legislation has been introduced by Sosnowski.

Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island is one of the womens’ advocacy groups that has led the charge locally for evening out this disparity. We caught up with Paula Hodges, Rhode Island Public Policy and Advocacy Director for Planned Parenthood, and asked for her take on the the built in sexism of gender rating by insurance companies.

The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services heard testimony from the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Susan Sosnowski, who said, “It’s outrageous that in 2013, we have to deal with this discrimination.”

“I bristle at the term discrimination,” said Shawn Donahue, lobbyist for Blue Cross/Blue Shield RI, “it is an actuarial fact that young women visit doctors more frequently. Insurance companies charge discriminatory rates for smokers. Men are discriminated against when it comes to life insurance.”

Committee Chairman Sen. Josh Miller grilled Donahue during his testimony, asking, “Just from a public policy point of view, do you have any data on the cost to the state for women that have dropped out of the insurance pool due to cost.”

Donahue had no answer.

During her testimony, Ms. Hodges, visibly annoyed, said, “I resent that gender is being equated to something situational like riding a motorcycle or smoking.”

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013

Breakdown In RI GOP

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

In case you haven’t heard, the election for Rhode Island Republican chair has turned into a mess. And let’s remember, this wasn’t a paid position or even a position of much influence or power. After invalidating the 94-93 vote by the party’s central committee to make Warren Republican Town Committee chair Mark Smiley chair of the Rhode Island Republican Party, the missing voter has been found, and it was all a clerical error; this led Smiley’s opponent Dr. Dan Harrop (who last challenged David Cicilline for mayor of Providence) to challenge the result.

But then, of course, it got worse. After an anonymous email from a hitherto unknown (and probably non-existent) Republican faction blasted the Smiley loyalists as bigots, former state senator Beth Moura left a semi-cryptic anti-GOP message on Harrop’s Facebook timeline. And finally, over at WPRO, Kim Kalunian has all the reactions from various Republican Party factions as of the end of Tuesday, including my personal favorite line refuting accusations of bigotry:

“We have friends and members that are Hispanic or black,” [Raymond] McKay [president of the Rhode Island Republican Assembly] said.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Not a promising start to a position which is vaguely the de facto leader of the Rhode Island Republicans (at least in years without a Republican governor). Not a promising way for a chair who might need to “restore credibility” to the Republican Party in Rhode Island to win the position.

I don’t think the 94-93 split is as divisive as it seems. For one thing, the candidates don’t seem to be that distinguishable on issues (as even outgoing chair Mark Zaccaria said). Smiley supposedly is the conservative wing and Harrop is supposed the moderate wing. Another thing is that political parties’ central committees are rarely representative of the actual voters that make up a party; those feelings are more accurately gauged by the party primary for party purposes. 187 people probably do not represent all of Rhode Island’s roughly 80,000 registered Republicans. Central committees tend to be made up of the most active of the activists, not of the rank and file voters.

So while Republicans can probably put away any fear of a public defection of their moderate wing (it has been quietly defecting for years), this vote doesn’t bode well for their prospects. After all, if not a single General Assembly incumbent lost a seat in 2012 (the year 38 Studios collapsed), it seems unlikely that the GOP could make significant gains in the 2014 cycle (certainly not large enough to weaken Democratic control of the state). What this will do is create bad blood between party factions, and in a small state like Rhode Island, you need your party to at least be able to work together in a general election to share data, assist with voter registration and outreach, and cooperate during get-out-the-vote. If there’s too much tension, the lackluster effort the GOP already puts into those fields could be easily diminished.

Indeed, it seems likely that between General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras that the Democratic Party has two highly-popular and well-known figures to run for the state’s top office. The GOP’s top contenders seem to remain Cranston Mayor Allan Fung and Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian. If the Democrats can seize the governor’s office, they might easily be able to hold it for the foreseeable future until the Republicans or another party finally emerge as a credible alternative.

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013

Celebrate Rhode Island, Support Calamari Bill

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

Sometimes, a state legislator has an idea that brings a smile to my face. And sometimes, that idea is ruthlessly mocked. So I think it’s high time I said something about H5654; better known as the “Calamari Bill” which makes Rhode Island-style calamari (the kind with pickled hot peppers) our state appetizer (as well as acknowledging that squid fishing is a major part of our economy).

First, let’s be clear about my biases:

I love Rhode Island.
Rhode Island-style calamari is delicious.

Now, a few sad-sacks have tried to turn this into some kind of demonstration of an out-of-touch Rhode Island legislature that’s more concerned with frivolous legislation than jobs building, something which the bill sponsor, Rep. Joseph McNamara (D – Cranston, Warwick), anticipated in his press release in February. Without knowing the details of how press releases from the State House work, I suppose I should note it could have been the RI Legislative Press Bureau that helped the representative make his case in the release. It’s easy to make fun of if you don’t have any catch shares, or are otherwise unconnected to the fishing industry.

I’ve already written about how our legislature can do more than one thing at a time. This seems to me an excellent bill. It promotes Rhode Island industry and tourism. Why eat Rhode Island calamari abroad when you can eat it in its birthplace? But it’s also a fun bill. They’re bringing in a chef to demonstrate how to prepare Rhode Island calamari the right way. This is a legislature that is notoriously thin-skinned and unable to openly laugh at its foibles. And they’re going to hear testimony from a chef, hopefully in digestible food form? That is government which takes itself just the right amount of serious.

Rep. McNamara is correct when he points out the following his press release: “So much of what we hear or read about Rhode Island is negative. We need to start promoting the good and wonderful things about our state.” Our calamari is a wonderful thing about our state. Too many members of our chattering and political classes have lost the ability to smile about our state. There’s too much negativity in the commentariat on our websites. We need to love our state, even when it fails. My state, wrong or right. If right then to defend it, if wrong then to amend it.

So yes, you can deride this as “feel-good” legislation. But frankly, do you want Rhode Island to feel bad all the time? And if you do, what’s wrong with you?