First, right off the bat: anyone who uses the phrase “Democrat Party” is already showing their ignorance of the Democratic Party. You should still read their arguments, but chances are, they’re going to be off-base. And that’s what Donna Perry’s column in GoLocalProv is (the URL says Julia Steiny for some reason).

Ms. Perry tries to set up a scenario of a polarized RI Democratic Party; a “traditional apparatus” Democratic Party under the command of Chairman Ed Pacheco and another “union-social liberal” Democratic party, with NEARI’s Bob Walsh as leader (because, why not, that works). Ms. Perry’s scenario breaks down almost immediately, though she muddles through to the correct conclusion arrived at by the wrong route (that Democratic Primary results “lacking a narrative,” as WPRI’s Ted Nesi put it, are likely to continue). As Ms. Perry points out, there were a number of races where unions and marriage equality supporters worked for different candidates. If Mr. Walsh is to be the head of Ms. Perry’s fictional second Democratic Party, he seems to be doing a piss-poor job of it (no offense meant, Bob, but get your fictional party in line).

Ms. Perry points to two races for Senate; Maryellen Butke vs. Gayle Goldin and Mike McCaffrey vs. Laura Pisaturo. In the interest of space, I’ll focus solely on the former.

In Ms. Perry’s telling, Ms. Butke the marriage equality and education reform “powerhouse” is defeated by Ms. Goldin the union-chosen candidate. This faux narrative completely ignores the fact that Ms. Butke, despite gobs of cash, ran a confusing campaign that both bashed the Democratic Party and retiring Senator Rhoda Perry, and then tried proposing that Ms. Butke was the true “progressive successor” to Rhoda Perry. One mailing had Ms. Butke’s happy campaign on one side, and an attack piece on Ms. Goldin in mock Goldin colors on the other. The attack piece attempted to tie Ms. Goldin to policies she had nothing to do with, citing sources that make zero mention of Ms. Goldin; including one of Mr. Nesi’s blog posts that simply pointed out that the ultimate cost of the $75 million 38 Studios loan guarantee was closer to $112 million.

On top of this, Ms. Perry neglects to mention that Senator-elect Goldin isn’t exactly any kind of right-wing ideologue; she’s worked for an organization that wants to eliminate gender inequity and implement social justice! Oh, the horror! How could liberal Providence East Side Democratic Primary voters dare choose Ms. Goldin? In essence, there wasn’t much difference between the candidates, and Ms. Butke’s semi-negative campaigning was not effective (though she was quite energetic).

Ms. Perry has made the mistake of thinking of groups as monolithic. She’s done well in beginning to not think of the Democratic Party as monolithic. But now she’s gone and begun thinking of her fake “two Democratic Parties” as being monolithic. Or social liberal or union voters as monolithic. Just because you support marriage equality doesn’t mean you always vote for the louder marriage equality candidate. Just because you’re in a union doesn’t mean you’re going to vote the way the union tells you.

The Democratic Party in Rhode Island is not really under the control of anyone. It is a large-scale coalition of disparate groups. You can’t make blanket assumptions about any one group within that coalition. They range from various unions (unions often work against one another), environmental groups, farmers, various minority communities, LGBTQ activists, internet freedom activists, anti-poverty crusaders, pro-life activists, education reformers, corporate leaders, lawyers, neoliberals, etc., etc. Heck, even though he lost, ALEC Democrat Jon Brien is still very much part of the Democratic Party of Rhode Island.

If there is a narrative from primary night, it’s that the Democratic Party is shifting left. Unions and marriage-equality supporters didn’t really lose any ground, they only gained it, knocking off a number of their opponents. Yes, they didn’t win everything, but then, no one does. They all won under the Democratic Party banner, which should be pleasing to the Democratic Party (a displeasing result would be a large organized mass of union and/or social liberal candidate running as independents and not participating in the primary). David Cicilline absolutely crushed Anthony Gemma, which should make many Democrats smile. Going into the general election, Democrats are going to have quite an advantage, with higher turnout rates to support President Barack Obama.

So, no, Ms. Perry, as much as you, or I, might wish it, there are not three parties in Rhode Island. There’s one. It’s called the Democratic Party. It runs the state. It’s in charge. It screws up, it succeeds. How powerful is it, you might ask? Well, let’s see why I didn’t count the Republican Party as a party.

Take a look at the first television ads for Barry Hinckley and Brendan Doherty. They’re only 30 seconds each (and rather benign), so it’ll only take about a minute. Notice anything? Both candidates use the phrase “both parties” when talking about who to blame for America’s economic situation. Both fail to make use of the color red, strongly associated with Republicans, instead opting for blue (strongly associated with Democrats). And most damning of all? Neither mention their party affiliation; only Mr. Doherty shows it (barely) onscreen, I assume because of law forcing him to show that the National Republican Committee helped pay for the ad. That should tell you all you need to know about the Republican Party in Rhode Island.

Baker lost her battle with cancer in August.

Instead, Tevyaw took in the governor’s historic executive order without her longtime spouse, and spoke of how the lack of such legal protections added undo consternation to last days of her lover’s life.

“I can’t begin to really tell you what this was like,” she said, holding back tears, as she spoke at the event to mark Chafee’s executive order. “All the late nights Pat spent on the phone and on the computer trying to get answers about pensions, survival benefits and social security. All things that most people in their last month of their life wouldn’t be forced to worry about.”

In what was otherwise a joyous occasion, Tevyaw’s remarks were a stark reminder that marriage equality is more than a mere matter of politics. To some, it is literally about life and death. And for Tevyaw and Baker, marriage equality did not come soon enough.

With Jack Reed now supporting same sex marriage, Teresa Paiva Weed is the last of Rhode Island’s premier politicians to stand in the way of marriage equality. Thus the only thing stopping Rhode Island from approving the legislation is the state Senate. Here’s hoping she sees what a smart politician her fellow Catholic Jack Reed was being and allows the measure to proceed before any more couples miss out on their chance.

Here’s a video on Deb and Pat’s struggle to attain equal rights made by Marriage Equality Rhode Island several months ago:

But in 2008, I lost my dear friend when Jon took his own life.

I will never really know why Jon left us so early. But I do know that behind the laughter and the kindness Jon struggled to accept who he was. He struggled because our society told him who he was was wrong, immoral, sinful, and different.

Jon was gay.

For me, this is what the LGBTQ equality fight is all about. Homophobia – like racism, sexism, and classism – causes harm. Real and tangible emotional and physical harm. What’s more, our government condones this discrimination in its utter failure to grant LGBTQ couples the dignity and respect that only marriage can afford.

This week the House Judiciary Committee will take testimony on three pieces of LGBTQ anti-discrimination policy: the Equal Access to Marriage Act, the Equal Access to Family Courts Act, and Equal Religious Protection Act. They are simple pieces of legislation aimed at one goal, ending LGBTQ bias in state law.

If years past are any indication, testimony this Wednesday at the State House will be impassioned, fraught with Biblical references, personal stories, and legal arguments. For me the argument is not merely about same sex marriage, access to divorce or religious protection, though these are certainly a critical steps forward.

For me it is about my friend Jon, who after belting out Tori Amos songs in my living would lose himself in despair so deep that he couldn’t find his way out because we allow our government and our neighbors to discriminate against him and all LGBTQ Rhode Islanders.

It can “get better” but not if we sit on our heels and wait for it. We have to take action to make it better. Ask you legislators to stand on the side of tolerance, acceptance and love and fight for LGBTQ equality.

Originally posted on RightHer www.wfri.com/blog

The controversial Corvese amendment to the recently enacted civil union law, which legislators will reconsider today, is seen as an affront to the very rights the new law bestows on same sex couples – it allows religious institutions to not recognize the relationship or otherwise adhere to the law. But for Rep. Frank Ferri, a gay legislator in a long-time committed relationship who is sponsoring the bill that would repeal the amendment, it is also a practical matter.

“It affects me personally,” he said, noting that Our Lady of Fatima, a Catholic-backed hospital in Providence, is the closest to his job in Johnston. “If I get rushed to the hospital … they can refuse to acknowledge my husband or my civil union partner and not let him make any decisions for my health care. They can refuse to even let him in the room.

Pointing out that the civil union law has religious exemptions in it without the controversial codicil that was added at the eleventh hour last session, he said, “The Corvese amendment extends religious exemptions to a point that is unfair to the LGBT community and people who are in civil unions. It actually takes away rights, that’s what I find so egregious about it.”

Author of the language, Rep. Doc Corvese, a very conservative Democrat from North Providence, defended his amendment, saying a Catholic hospital probably would extend the same courtesy to a same sex couple that by right it would legally obliged to for a heterosexual couple.

“Just because we have the right to say or do something doesn’t mean we should,” he said. “With regard to a Catholic hospital I doubt very much they would prevent an individual in a relationship from discussing medical questions.”

He didn’t answer when I asked him what he would do if he were the hospital administrator. But he did when I asked if the Corvese amendment, or the man himself, were anti-gay. “Just because there are people who support traditional marriage doesn’t mean they are homophobic,” he said. “That’s just more liberal pablum forced on us by the media.”

The bill to repeal the Corvese amendment is one of three pieces of marriage equality legislation being heard by the House Judiciary Committee after the regular House session. Rep. Art Handy, a progressive Democrat from Cranston, is sponsoring a bill that would legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island. And Rep. Larry Valencia, a progressive Democrat from Charlestown, has a bill that would allow same sex couples to get a divorce in Rhode Island. (Would it say something about our state if gay couples could get divorced but not married?)

None of the bills are expected to pass. Marriage Equality Rhode Island supports all three. According to Ray Sullivan, of MERI:

It’s sad that in 2012 these hearings are even necessary, but unfortunately Rhode Island is still a place where all citizens are not treated equally.

The 2012 Equality Agenda is about eliminating across the board discrimination against LGBTQ Rhode Islanders in loving, committed relationships who are seeking nothing more than equal rights, protection and recognition under the law.

With momentum growing across the country and a strong majority of Rhode Islander standing with us, we won’t stop fighting and organizing until the governor signs marriage equality into law.

Members of the General Assembly who continue to support intolerance or stand in the way of progress should be advised that they do so at their own electoral detriment.