House Speaker Gordon Fox says he will push for marriage equality in the next legislative session, according to Ted Nesi of WPRI.
“It’s one of those issues that I need to come back, we need to address, and I intend if I’m elected speaker to address it early,” Fox said during a taping of Newsmakers today.
Fox, who is gay, enraged the progressive community when he didn’t allow same sex marriage to come to a vote on the House floor in 2011. He has said it was a very difficult decision given his personal stake in the matter. Insiders say Fox didn’t call the vote because he knew it wouldn’t pass in the Senate, and many House members didn’t want to be put on record if the bill wasn’t going to pass.
Regardless, with his announcement today, he seems to have mended some of the fences he broke with the progressive community.
“We appreciate Speaker Fox’s commitment to finally calling a vote on marriage equality and look forward to working with him to pass this important civil rights legislation early in the next session,” said Ray Sullivan of Marriage Equality of Rhode Island. “Under Speaker Fox and Gov. Chafee’s leadership, all eyes will turn to the Senate, where there is a wide coalition working to ensure that a pro-equality majority is elected.”
Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed does not support marriage equality for Rhode Island, and there is substantial resistance to the idea outside of her in the Senate. Here’s the story we wrote about marriage equality in the Senate in early June.
And here’s my video from 2011 of Fox talking about why he didn’t push for marriage equality:
Just like last time, right?
The big question is, then, do we trust Fox… again? This recent revelation about his future intentions seems designed to absorb some of the criticism coming his way for the 38 Studios debacle. In 2011 he didn’t do it. In 2012 he didn’t even try. In 2013, suddenly, he’ll try to make it happen? I wonder if he’s up for re-election…
Could be, Steve… ;-)
Glad that we all agree on this issue…
“The big question is, then, do we trust Fox… again? This recent revelation about his future intentions seems designed to absorb some of the criticism coming his way for the 38 Studios debacle.”
It’s called pandering at best and blackmail at the worst.
Why are opponents of the homosexual agenda called haters or homophobes? This negative, ad hominem, argument tries to redirect the listener to not listen to the actual facts presented by the speaker or writer but rather to view the presenter in the worst possible light. This methodology, though a logical fallacy, works. The good news is most thinking people on the right side of this debate understand this and just keep speaking up and voting their conscience.
This is America where the people rule. We should all remember that. In fact here is the opening of the Declaration of Independence:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …
…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
It is very interesting that the founders included four references to the Christian God in their public declaration, and that thousands died for the freedoms they sought under God. Should we too appeal to God for our wisdom on these things? I say we should.
Regarding Mr. Fox, like all career politicians he will do whatever it takes to get reelected.
“Should we too appeal to God for our wisdom on these things? I say we should.”
How about when it comes to slavery? Should we seek God’s wisdom on that topic? If we do, we’ll see that God explains *how* other people should be owned, which implicitly accepts the notion that people are property. God got the easiest moral question we’ll ever face completely wrong. How likely do you think it is that he got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong as well?
You talk about God as if you actually have a say in His decisions. God doesn’t ask for nor does he need our advice. He is the creator and we are creatures. We are finite and He is infinite. We have a beginning and are contingent. He is eternal and self existent. He also exists whether we believe it or not. What kind of a God would he be if he didn’t exist?
“we’ll see that God explains *how* other people should be owned” Just for the record, would you mind pointing out exactly where this explanation is?
“would you mind pointing out exactly where this explanation is?”
Exodus 21:2-6 and Leviticus 25:44-46 are good places to start.
“What kind of a God would he be if he didn’t exist?”
Anselm’s ontological proof of god?
You are a performance artist of the highest caliber.
While I would love nothing more than to debate the existence of God and argue logic vs. faith, this is not the forum. Much like the decisions made by Constantine at the First Council of Nicea with regards to the composition of the Old and New Testaments, this discussion is purely political.
In purely logical terms, if one does not agree with gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. Otherwise, let all men, created equal, enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My solution is to leave marriage to a church and the eyes of whatever God you happen to acknowledge. But grant Civil Unions all the rights currently afforded to marriage. That way, should a couple choose to commit to a life together, they are recognized all by the same and equal rights legally. Should they choose to get married, if the particular denomination they embrace chooses to recognize that union, they can recognize that union in the eyes of their God. Or not. But this separates, legally, the institutions of church and state.
“While I would love nothing more than to debate the existence of God and argue logic vs. faith”
“ In purely logical terms”
You really don’t see your problem here?
“this is not the forum”
It clearly is. I mean: it’s really sweet that you think you can sidestep the whole religious debate by simply declaring what is logical and moving on, but that sweetness doesn’t respond to the actual problem, which is that a significant portion of the population really does not care what you think is logical. At all.
In other words, you recognize that there is a debate between logic and faith, and you pick logic as the winner. Well! Consider the matter settled!
As jgardner pointed out, let’s take government completely out of marriage. I would take it a step further. Eliminate marriage licenses and any other laws pertaining to marriage. Marriage should be contract made outside of government. If you want to sign a marriage contract in front of a priest, minister, rabbi, lawyer, etc., that’s your choice. Government’s only involvement would be to settle civil disputes arising out of a break up and/or custody dispute. Solomon has one thing right, if we continue down the path of writing laws pertaining to marriage, who’s next? Polygamists? Then who? Those that want to follow the laws of God can and those that don’t won’t have to and government is out of it.
While that may me a desirable endgame DD, it would be ridiculously difficult to achieve. There are so many legal and economic benefits that are granted by the state (fed or local) to married couples, a number of which could could not be contracted outside of government because they have to do with dealings with government — spousal privilege, SS death benefits, tax filing status, etc…
At the end of the day, I have a right to equal treatment from government. If the gov’t doesn’t grant the same legal and economic privileges to homosexual couples as it does to heterosexual ones by preventing homosexual couples from filing for a marriage license, then the government is clearly violating the due process clause of the Constitution. That’s it. End of story. Solomon and others can make all the moral and religious arguments they’d like to regarding homosexuality. Those arguments are irrelevant in the larger picture.
“ spousal privilege, SS death benefits, tax filing status, etc…”
Eliminate them all. I understand the difficulty here but government shouldn’t be in the business of incentivizing marriage.
There are things that are asserted to be good for society and they are often provided a legally favored status. If big oil can have it for example in the form of tax breaks, then why not “married” any sex couples, as those who are married and in family are often argued to be the basic unit of Western Civilization and thereby beneficial? Surely this “basic unit” is as important to our society as the flow of oil?
If you want to eliminate all the beneficial treatments, then I suspect that society will truly lose out as well as those who are in that society. Collective action when unified generally trumps individual efforts.
jgardner is right in his analysis regarding “a right to equal treatment from government” as the ideal. If only ALL government activity was so applied. But, as the Grateful Dead once sang, “Can you give the answer? Yes I can. But what will be the answer to the answer man?” Someone is always ready to give the answer, just ask Bush, “The Decider”. Conservatives can almost always be sure of their rightfulness and the other side’s wrongfulness. It is part of their biological make up. And then there is the idea of privilege, so widespread in some social sectors.
Frankly ”a right to equal treatment from government” is as “ridiculously difficult to achieve” as “removing government from marriage”. These may be abstract ideals, deferentially supported by different points on the political spectrum, but isn’t it time to face the REAL world and work to create what you believe? As Abbie Hoffman once said, “Action is the only reality.”
In my discourse here I confess to be as guilty as anyone.