Bob Plain is the editor/publisher of Rhode Island's Future. Previously, he's worked as a reporter for several different news organizations both in Rhode Island and across the country.

12 responses to “RIers, Church Council Support Marriage Equality”

  1. Solomon

    Marriage Equality?
    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been. Always will. There is nothing you or government can do to change that, though I am sure you will try.
    Twisting a wax nose into the shape you want it to be can never change the fact that it is a wax nose.
    Some things are right and some are wrong. Why is this so? What standard do you use?
    In this case a new standard is being fabricated out of thin air at the whim of popularity. What will be next? As in all things, mankind does what is right in his/her own eyes. Your blindness is epic.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)
    1. PinkHatLib

      “Marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been.”

      Technically between a man and a woman of the same race, until fairly recently when it was changed by the government. Not to mention that many Old Testament prophets had multiple wives, until some “whim of popularity’ changed that.

      VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
      Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
      1. Solomon

        Thanks for not calling me nasty names. I appreciate that. This is a difficult issue for sure with so many different opinions and points of view.

        What I am trying to say is this, standards (where ever they come from, and I have my beliefs on that) are set by either the creator or the created. If you are not a God fearing person then you simply make your own standards for your own reasons. And if you are passionate about the standard you are advocating you lobby hard to have it legislated.

        Marriage Equality is just such an issue.

        My point of view is simple. There is a creator. He is sovereign over His creation. He makes all the rules. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The people can change their rules by legislation. God’s rules remain as He set them.

        As far as the biblical characters you mention, I agree. The bible is full of sinners, and some of them are famous for their abrogation of God’s rules. This demonstrates my point rather than disproving it.

        VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    2. Portsmouth Citizen

      Dear Solomon:
      Actually, for most of recorded history marriage has been between one man and as many wives and concubines as he could afford. Even your own avatar name, Solomon of the bible, had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So — clearly — you have no actual knowledge about truth and history, but instead choose to parrot the talking points of the pro-discrimination crowd. 
      So much for your facility with history. As for your facility with logic, I’ll leave trashing your pathetic argumentum ad antiquitatem to others.

      VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
      Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
      1. Solomon

        Dear Portsmouth Citizen:

        Actually, not. I am aware that throughout history a small minority (especially in the west, where we live) of the population have taken multiple wives (at the same time). On the other hand the vast majority of weddings during the past, let’s say, 1500 years have been between one man and one woman. Can we agree on that as a fact?

        Let’s be honest. We both know that right now marriage between members of the same sex is right in the middle of the cultural debate. It is being lobbied hard by the “gay” community and is meeting with the resistance any “new” and “non-traditional” cause would meet. I think that’s the main reason we are talking.

        There are arguments on both sides of the debate. I don’t mind debating these issues. But I will admit that when an advocate from the other side (you in this case) calls their opponent a parrot…well then that’s when the argument breaks away from the central issue and we digress into name calling. I am not a parrot though I may agree with others who agree with me. That is logical.

        Thanks for your comments. Please don’t use name calling. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

        VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  2. Ericka

    I am sick of hearing from such bigoted folks as Solomon. As has been said above, there are quite a few churches and religious organizations who are for marriage equality. The rest are the very vocal minority. Some of them the lying vocal minority. So let’s get on with the vote. Senator Paiva-Weed, the ball is in your court. Hit it.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
    1. Solomon

      Name calling is not nice Ericka. Someone who doesn’t agree with you, and is willing to engage in a discussion with you is an opponent not a bigot.
      Bigot–: a person who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
      I have an opinion. I am not a bigot.

      VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  3. jgardner

    Marriage is not defined in the US Constitution. Therefore, Solomon’s claim that it’s always been between a man and a woman, besides being historically inaccurate, is completely irrelevant. To say it must remain a heterosexual arrangement because it’s the current social norm is a terribly weak defense, because as PHL notes, it wasn’t that long ago that interracial marriages were against the norm. It wasn’t that long ago that racial segregation was the law and women were prevented from voting. Those “social norms” didn’t prevent us from realizing those errors and correcting them.

    We the people have not given the gov’t the authority to regulate personal relationships between consenting adults. To deny homosexual couples the legal benefits and protections given to heterosexual couples is so obviously unconstitutional it’s almost laughable. I understand that legal changes must be made because laws were written that purposely or not, implicitly or explicitly, infringed on the rights of some people, but that doesn’t mean these changes couldn’t have occurred through the courts. Of course there’s still that chance.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  4. cailin rua

    In the Christian West marriage between partners of the same sex wasn’t outlawed until the Theodosian Code was enacted toward the end of the Roman Empire. That would make it slightly more than 1500 years:

    “Few people appreciate the significance of the Theodosian Code because they haven’t been living with its effects. But they can be, and they will be, if the Religious Right has its way. Think about it for a moment. This legal code contains a collection of laws institutionalizingintolerance and repression, of brutal suppression of not only Pagans, but Jews and even other Christians, homosexuals, heretics and others, whose beliefs or actions did not match the stringent requirements of post-Nicene Christianity.”

    How many centuries of Inquisitions and witch hunts were the result in the past 15 centuries?  I fail to see the “morality” in any of it.



    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  5. leftyrite

    May two minds be married

    in a ceremony that both honor?

    Or, is it necessary for the thought police

    to break down even that door

    in the interests of some telepathic person

    who doesn’t feel comfortable?

    (Hesitate one beat before you call this ridiculous.)


    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.