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.

One response to “Marriage Equality Battle Now Squarely in Senate”

  1. Solomon

    Some in Hawaii tried and failed to legislate this kind of new arrangement.
    And recently:
    “Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage in Hawaii
    Written by Dave Bohon
     
    A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Hawaii law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, as well as a constitutional amendment that gives the state legislature the power to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.
     
    The plaintiffs in the case, two lesbian women who wanted to “marry” and a separate homosexual man, had filed the federal lawsuit last year, arguing that the 1998 state constitutional amendment giving lawmakers power to legislate on behalf of traditional marriage, as well as the law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
     
    But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage. “Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages. “ … It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii…. Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”

     
    The judge also noted that across the nation “citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” rather than through the courts.”
    As the debate continues many more Rhode Islanders will form their own opinions about this new way of describing and defining marriage. How they do this will based on one of two contradictory world views. The moral relativism of the progressive left, et al, as opposed to the God fearing morality of the Judeo-Christian right, et al.
    At the end of the day you can try to take God out of the government but you can’t take God out of the people who are the government.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.