Posted on

The Bishop Has No Clothes


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

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

Many Roman Catholics look to those who hold exalted positions within the hierarchy of the church for guidance on moral issues, but if polls on the behavior of Catholics in their personal lives regarding such issues as birth control and marriage equality are any indication, most Catholics find their morality elsewhere.

Still, this does not stop some high ranking prelates, such as Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Diocese of Providence, from publicly pontificating on issues of concern to the church and using his not inconsiderable political power to influence the General Assembly to hue closely to Catholic ideals. As reported on RI Future, “The President, the entire congressional delegation, the governor and the House all would support marriage equality in Rhode Island. But ‘probably two handfuls’ of Catholic state senators still stand in the way.” Unfortunately, those two handfuls of Catholic senators give the impression of answering to Bishop Tobin first, and their constituents and the Constitution of the United States second.

Tobin is unafraid to take strong stands to advance the political agenda of his church in a very public way. In 2009 the bishop famously denied Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy the sacrament of communion because Kennedy supported a woman’s right to choose in matters of abortion and family planning.

Speaking on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly show in December of 2009, Tobin said:

I think the Church has every right and indeed the obligation to be at the table in these important questions of public policy and certainly the bishops have been for a long time now involved in the question [of] health care and the legislation that’s been developing and lots of other issues too and as I’ve often said, if the church, not just the Catholic church, but the religious community, if we don’t bring these values, this spiritual vision to these discussions, who else will do that?

O’Reilly, to his credit, pushed back against Tobin somewhat, asking why he would deny legislators sacraments in the case of supporting abortion rights but not in the case of a politician supporting capital punishment. Tobin differentiated between abortion and capitol punishment:

Abortion we believe is intrinsically wrong, it’s always wrong. There are no circumstances under which abortion can be justified… the church has been very clear and very consistent about that. However the church has also taught pretty consistently the death penalty, while it is not necessary and probably immoral in our time, at least in theory there may be circumstances that allows the death penalty to be a moral option.

To a non-Catholic Tobin’s distinction may seem arbitrary or overly legalistic, but the bishop, when speaking on matters of Catholic theology and doctrine should be taken at his word. Tobin clearly intends to ground his public comments on political issues in morality as interpreted by the Catholic Church. He said as much recently on the May 15, 2012 Buddy Cianci Show. Talking about marriage equality, Tobin said:

We don’t want to fight with [proponents of same-sex marriage] but we do have the right and I think the duty to comment on these issues and the pieces of legislation we think are objectionable and we’ll try to do that but we’ll try to do that respectfully.

Odd then, that even given the distinction he makes between between abortion and capital punishment, Tobin would be more concerned with opposing marriage equality and standing up for such seemingly trivial matters as the prayer banner in Cranston or the cross in Woonsocket than in standing up against capital punishment. These other issues are not life or death propositions, though certainly the quality of life would be improved immeasurably for many in our state by the passage of a marriage equality bill.

Clarifying his position on the death penalty through the lens of the Pleau case, Tobin explains why he does not feel qualified to speak out on this issue on the May 10, 2012 John DePetro Show:

The position of the church on capital punishment is rather clear, that we do do not think that the use of capital punishment in necessary or appropriate in our culture and in our society today. I’ve intentionally stayed away from this particular issue because it gets quickly involved in constitutional issues and state’s rights issues and federal law and local law that I’m really not qualified to talk about. So while in principle I would support the rejection of the use of capital punishment I’ve intentionally stayed away from this particular [case] because it does get rather involved in technical legal issues that I’m not at all qualified to address.

Elaborating further, if a bit repetitively, Tobin adds:

…there are some technical legal questions involved and again that’s why I’ve deliberately tried to stay out of that issue because it’s well beyond my competence to try and say where the Federal law begins and where the state law begins and the responsibilities of the federal government and governor. While [Catholics] certainly reject the use of capital punishment in our culture and our society today because it is, again, the taking of a human life, we don’t think it’s necessary. This is a very complex issue that involves law and the Constitution on the one hand, but very deep and personal and heartfelt emotions on the other and it’s enormously difficult to balance the two.

So with this deft bit of verbal lawyering Tobin divorces himself from having to speak out on the issue of capital punishment because he is not a lawyer. This makes sense, in a way, because Tobin is a theologian, not a lawyer, and should optimally only be engaged in theological pursuits and providing moral guidance for the Catholics in his church. But how do we square Tobin’s reluctance with his earlier assertion that he and his church “…have the right and I think the duty to comment on these issues and the pieces of legislation we think are objectionable…”

Tobin can certainly sound lawyerly when he wants to. Speaking about the Cross in Woonsocket now at the center of a church/state separation debate, Tobin said:

It certainly has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, this is not the establishment of a denomination, it’s not the establishment of a particular church or the recognizing of a church by the state, this is a cultural symbol…

One might be led to believe that the Woonsocket Cross is not “a very complex issue that involves law and the Constitution” that Tobin is “not at all qualified to address” but is instead a simple moral issue that the bishop feels well qualified to speak out on. On this issue and others, Tobin is not prepared to claim legal ignorance but instead speaks out forcefully.

On the May 10th DePetro Show Tobin decried President Obama’s recent declaration that his position has evolved and that he now personally supports marriage equality. Tobin said:

It’s a very, very strange evolution. The man has no real moral foundation, moral compass. This is clearly politically driven… It’s unfortunate that the leader of our nation doesn’t have a stronger moral compass to direct him… and you know, some of the other politicians who have chimed in on this I think have the same lack of moral foundation, whether you talk about President Obama or Vice President Biden or the Senators, Whitehouse and Reed or the Congressmen Langevin and Cicilline, none of them have a strong moral foundation or compass, there’s not a single profile in courage among the lot.

Speaking of Reed, and the rest of the Rhode Island delegation, Tobin added:

I think the whole group … are driven by the Democratic agenda.

and

In many of these cases, for some of these politicians it’s more important for them to be a Democrat than a Catholic and in many cases they’ve abandoned the basic teaching of the church.

Let’s go back to Tobin’s attack on Congressman Kennedy, a Democrat. Let’s go back to the silly issue over the Christmas Tree, or Holiday Tree, as Governor Chafee’s office called it. Even though plenty of evidence was produced to show that former Governor Carcieri, a Republican, had also referred to the tree in the Rhode Island State House as a Holiday Tree on more than one occasion, Tobin never had an issue with the designation until Governor Chafee took office. Chafee, an independent who strongly favors marriage equality, is disliked by Bishop Tobin whereas Carcieri found in Tobin a staunch supporter.

This is likely why Tobin will not take a strong stance on the Pleau case. Governor Chafee is making a very strong, moral case that Rhode Island’s long and historic opposition to the death penalty necessitates exhausting every legal option, up to and including the Supreme Court, to prevent a Rhode Island citizen from facing the death penalty on a Federal level. Though it is a complex legal case, the morality of the death penalty is a comparatively simple moral stance to take from the point of view of a Roman Catholic, but Tobin balks. Though the bishop would, in theory, oppose the death penalty on Catholic theological grounds, he seems to not want to do anything that might make it appear that he is supporting the governor, a political enemy.

It should surprise no one that Bishop Tobin’s political bent is not progressive or liberal. It is right-wing and authoritarian in the worst way. He is anti-gay rights, anti-women’s rights, and even opposed to the constitutional separation of church and state. Tobin is a theocrat. Even the most progressive stance he espouses, that the death penalty is at least in theory morally wrong is shrouded in caveats:

…we do do not think that the use of capital punishment is necessary or appropriate in our culture and in our society today.

Note that Tobin qualifies that statement with the word, “today.” The death penalty was appropriate in the past (perhaps when the Catholic Church had nearly unlimited political power) and may one day be morally correct in the future (in that nightmare world where the Catholic Church has massive political power once more.) It is only today, when the moral certainty of the Catholic church is marginalized by secular society, that capital punishment is considered wrong by Tobin.

Tobin’s reactionary politics may be abhorrent to progressives and humanists, but in truth little more can be expected from a man so deeply vested in the ancient theocratic mindset prevalent in today’s Catholic Church. I would venture that Tobin’s tenure as Bishop has been devastating to Rhode Island Catholics especially since under his tenure the percentage of Catholics in the state has dropped to 44% according to a study by the Association of Statisticians of American religious Bodies. Indeed, Rhode Island can no longer claim to be the most Catholic state in the United States, that distinction now belongs to Massachusetts.

Worse than his politics is Tobin’s style of public discourse. On the marriage equality debate, Tobin said:

…let me emphasize [when] we [the Roman Catholic Church] participate in these public debates it’s never intended to be insulting or personally offensive [to people of] same-sex orientation. They are children of God and certainly our brothers and sisters in the community.

Apparently the insulting and personally offensive comments are reserved for those working to preserve the reproductive rights of women. On the Providence Diocese website RICatholic.com, The American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, Humanists of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Medical Society, Brown Medical Students for Choice and Catholics for Choice were referred to as “radical promoters of death” for speaking out against laws that seek to limit a woman’s right to access birth control, including abortion.

Tobin equates atheism with a lack of morality, though even the most conservative Catholic theologians understand that people can be moral without a belief in God. Tobin is quick to make gross, sweeping characterizations about non-believers. Speaking on the April 24th John DePetro Show about the cross in Woonsocket, Tobin makes the following, almost paranoid statement:

Do we want a state and a nation completely free of any expressions of faith or references to God or moral values or spiritual values order we want a state and a nation where these things are part of our life and part of our culture. I think the church, the religious community, the faith community has so much to contribute to our citizens, to our individuals but to our common life together that’s the kind of nation state we have had historically, but unfortunately these other forces of secularism and atheism are encroaching upon us. You know the governor has that famous quote he said that “the world is changing” well I hope it’s not changing that much because then we’re going to be completely separated from God and we’ll be living truly in an atheistic culture and society and i don’t think most of our people want that.

Tobin fears living “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.” Tobin fears this because in this America he would just be just another priest, ministering to his flock, watching his religion become ever more redundant in a world that has left ancient and medieval beliefs behind. By the way, the above quote is from John F. Kennedy in his address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association from September 12, 1960.

Tobin seems well acquainted with this former president. Not only is former Congressman Patrick Kennedy JFK’s nephew, Tobin obliquely referenced the first and so far only Catholic president when speaking of the Congressional delegation from Rhode Island, saying, “there’s not a single profile in courage among the lot.” Profiles in Courage is a 1955 Pulitzer Prize winning book by JFK that “describes acts of bravery and integrity by eight United States Senators throughout the Senate’s history.” Tobin knows the popularity of JFK among his Catholic constituency, and his use of the presidents book title to disparage our present crop of senators and congressmen is particularly appalling given Kennedy’s expressed views on church/state separation.

Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, famously said, “…when one mixes religion and politics, one gets politics” and that’s something that Bishop Tobin should pay more attention to. The more involved the Catholic Church gets involved in politics the less it becomes a church and the more it becomes just another conservative political lobby. Mythological belief systems may work to undergird a system of personal morality for some people but actively working to enforce those personal values on everyone in our secular society is theocratic, anti-Democratic and anti-American.

Bishop Thomas Tobin frocks himself in the garments of moral authority and spiritual leadership but his conservative politicking on social issues reveal him as a naked hypocrite. When it comes to morality and ethics, the Bishop has no clothes.

Posted on

Ciccone Bill Would Repeal Marriage Equality Order


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

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

As we first reported last week, Sen. Frank Ciccone is pushing a bill that would weaken Gov. Chafee’s executive affirmation that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states.

The Democrat from Providence submitted on Thursday “a joint resolution of the House and Senate on Thursday rejecting the order’s assertion,” according to the Projo.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island responded to the filing with a press release saying:

“Gov. Chafee’s executive order sent a powerful message that all Rhode Island families should be valued, respected and treated equally under the law. It’s a sad day for our state when members of the Senate would introduce a resolution whose ultimate purpose is to strip Rhode Island citizens of their civil rights. Sen. Ciccone’s position is indefensible, and we urge the members of the General Assembly to reject this outrageous assalut on equality, common sense and fundamental decency.”

A bill that would legalize marriage equality has not yet been heard by a Senate committee yet this year, and its chances are looking increasingly grim with some hoping to be done with the session by June 1.

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Sen. Michael McCaffrey does not support the bill, but I haven’t yet asked him if it would at least have a hearing.

Ray Sullivan, of Marriage Equality Rhode Island said he hasn’t heard if there will be a hearing.

We haven’t been told officially or definitively whether or not we’ll receive a hearing on our legislation,” he said in an email. “That being said, we would not be surprised if the Senate did not schedule hearings.”

Posted on

‘Two Handfuls’ of Senators Block 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

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

Forget about a marriage equality bill making it out of the Senate this session, such legislation hasn’t even been heard in committee this year. It was introduced on February 16, but still hasn’t received its customary hearing.

“I think you know what my position is on this,” said Sen. Michael McCafffrey, a Warwick Democrat, when asked for his position on marriage equality. It is well-known that McCaffrey, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, doesn’t support the bill.

The next hurdle is that several other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee don’t love it either. Sen Harold Metts is on record as not supporting it, and Sen. Paul Jabour, a Democrat who represents Federal Hill and the West Side, told me he “still prefers civil unions.”

Jabour said he’s still weighing whether or not to support actual marriage equality.

Sen. William Walaska, a conservative Democrat from Warwick who is also on the Judiciary Committee, wasn’t tipping his hand, saying, “You’re asking me about a vote that isn’t on the floor yet. I’d have to look at the legislation.”

Even Sen. Erin Lynch, a Warwick Democrat who co-sponsored such a bill last year, wouldn’t fully commit this year, saying she supports marriage equality in theory but that “it depends on the language of the bill.”

Outside of the committee, there are a number of Democrats who don’t support marriage equality, including Sens. Dominick Ruggerio, the majority leader, from North Providence, Frank Ciccone, of Providence and Louis DiPalma, of Middletown.

Ciccone said he will submit a bill soon that would reverse Gov. Chafee’s executive order that recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states. “I think the governor exceeded his authority,” he said, noting a recent court case before the state Supreme Court. “I don’t think an executive order can supersede a Supreme Court decision.”

Of course, there’s also Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who wouldn’t even answer my questions last night at the State House.

By the way, I think every Senator I just mentioned is Catholic (I’m not sure about Metts or Lynch). And, it’s worth noting, there is no shortage of GOP support for marriage equality in the chamber. Sens. Christopher Ottiano, a Portsmouth Republican, and Dawson Hodgson, a socially-liberal Republican who represents East Greenwich and North Kingstown, would support marriage equality if it came to a floor vote. Nick Kettle, of Coventry, said he likely would too, but only after taking the pulse of his constituents.

“Probably two handfuls,” is the way Sen. DiPalma described it to me when I asked him about the opposition to marriage equality in the Senate. Based on my very informal whip count, that sounds about right. The President, the entire congressional delegation, the governor and the House all would support marriage equality in Rhode Island. But “probably two handfuls” of Catholic state Senators still stand in the way.

Posted on

Deb Tevyaw, Pat Baker Never Got to Enjoy Equality


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

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

Deb Tevyaw and Pat Baker would have benefited greatly from Gov. Chafee’s executive order recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The two women married in Massachusetts in 2005 and resided in Rhode Island. But after impassioned efforts on behalf of marriage equality last session, they didn’t get to testify together this year, or watch the governor decree their relationship marriage valid yesterday.

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:

Posted on

RI Recognizes Out-of-State, Same Sex Marriages


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Gov Chafee and Ray Sullivan of Marriage Equality Rhode Island celebrate the RI recognizing out-of-state same sex marriages.

Saying Rhode Island should pass its own marriage equality law, Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed an executive order today that asserts this state recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states.

“Let’s get there ourselves,” he said to an enthusiastic crowd packed into the State Room of the State House. “This is the home of Roger Williams. Come on, let’s go.”

The governor’s executive order reaffirms a 2007 memo from the attorney general that said Rhode Island recognizes all marriages performed in other states per a 1904 law. But Chafee said there has been some confusion in state government as to whether or not same sex marriages performed in other states are valid in Rhode Island.

“This executive order,” he said, “sends a clear message to married Rhode Islanders, regardless of their sexual orientation, that they can and should rely on their marriage to protect them and their families in important ways.”

Ray Sullivan, of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said Rhode Island is the first state in the country “to sign an executive order providing critical clarity and direction to government agencies regarding the recognition of same-sex, out-of-state marriages.”

Sullivan said, in a press release, “While this moves us closer to full marriage equality, nothing less is sufficient, and we will keep fighting.”

Chafee said talks are ongoing between him and legislative leaders about passing a marriage equality law this session. Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed is still standing in the way of the bill’s passage. Chafee said she is not amenable to passing the bill this session. When asked if she seemed willing to support the bill this year, Chafee said, “To be perfectly honest with you, not in this session.”

He indicated that House Speaker Gordon Fox is ready to pass the bill. When asked who supports passing marriage equality this session, he said, “You can probably guess who is supportive and who isn’t.”

Fox, who is openly gay, fought behind the scenes to get Paiva Weed to support same sex marriage last session, but never called for a full vote in his chamber because some members did not want to have to go on record if they knew it wouldn’t pass in the Senate.

Posted on

RI Progress Report: Tobin Corners ‘Creepy’ Market; More on Marriage Equality, Barrington’s Tuition Proposal


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

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

It won’t happen this session, but we’d be real surprised if opposition to marriage equality in the Rhode Island Senate can fend off the legislation for another year. Ted Nesi reports that the Senate’s opposition to gay marriage is “softening.”

Meanwhile, Ian Donnis reports that Rev. Gene Dyszlewski is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Bea Lanzi … Dyszlewski is the chair of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality and has told a Senate committee that “same sex marriage is god’s will.”

Speaking of the church and marriage equality, we wonder if Bishop Tobin realizes that the news value in him calling someone’s statements “creepy” is the irony of it. He’s practically cornered the Rhode Island market on creepy statements and positions and the Catholic church is among the creepiest institutions going. Bishop Tobin should really spend more time helping the poor and much less time engaging in useless and bigoted behavior.

And speaking of picking on people, if you haven’t read the Washington Post story about Mitt Romney bullying a fellow student while in prep school, click here.

More on Barrington’s proposal -and it is still very much just a proposal – to offer out-of-town students to pay tuition to attend the high-performing schools. It’s amazing how much the idea has evolved in just 24 short hours … for as well as Barrington students fare on standardized tests, you’d think its school committee could have figured out to get a legal opinion before going public with a proposal so fraught with legal and moral conundrums.

Good move, state Senate, in voting to repeal former Gov. Don Carcieri’s limits on how long families can collect welfare benefits … even with the repeal, Rhode Islanders will still be able to collect for less time than the average American. 35 states, reports Phil Marcelo, cap the time a family can collect welfare benefits at 60 months. RI would go from 24 months to 48.

Did you see the US Chamber of Commerce’s TV ad for Brendan Doherty? You can watch it here, if you’re into that kinda thing…

Posted on

Equality Endorsement One on Long List for Obama


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

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

On Wednesday President Obama remarked that he supports allowing same-sex couples to marry. That’s great, but it is just words. What’s more, the president doesn’t really have much to say on the issue anyway, since (a) marriage is a state-by-state thing, (b) in state votes, same-sex marriage keeps losing, (c) Obama isn’t a Supreme Court justice, nor does he even enjoy a working majority among them.

Words are fine, and can both inform us and lift us up, but they aren’t reliable. I find I learn a lot less from what people say than from what they do. Everyone wants to be the hero of their own story and so words are generally self-serving. There’s nothing unusual about that. That’s why I enjoy reading budgets more than I like going to press conferences. You learn more, and what you learn is more reliable.

This is never so true as when you’re learning something pleasant. The temptation is never to probe, but just to accept, good news. And of course this is exactly when it’s the most important to do exactly that. Self-deception is the most effective kind of deception, isn’t it?

That’s why it was a pleasure to stumble across a list like this, via Balloon Juice, that provides a list of the things that are within the President’s control on sexuality civil rights and that Obama has already acted on. It’s a fairly long list of hate crime legislation passed, military policies repealed, anti-discrimination clauses adopted, spousal benefits provided, visitation rights granted, family and medical leave act provisions extended, openly gay appointees named, and anti-DOMA arguments made.  The content varies, but many represent actual achievements.  Several of those undo damage done by previous Presidents who vocally supported equal rights, but gave us some pretty damaging policies anyway.

The conflict between those who want the prize now and those who are content to be on the right path will always be with us. Important changes take work, work takes time, and in the long run we’re all dead. These are the realities of political change. There is little reason not to harass those in office about important policies. The office holders who disagree with you need to hear that there are dissenters, and those who agree need your support, and often, a push. But on the issue of civil rights, I believe it’s important to see Obama’s statement about marriage equality not as a beginning, nor even as a bone tossed to an important constituency, but as item number 41 on the third list down.  Call it putting your mouth where your money is.

Posted on

Reed Now Supports Marriage Equality, Too


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

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

Thanks, presumably, to President Obama’s historic announcement of support for marriage equality, Rhode Island’s entire congressional delegation now believes gay couples should enjoy the same relationship rights as heterosexual couples.

Senator Jack Reed was the lone holdout to support same sex marriage among the state’s beltway pols, but about three hours after the president announced he now supports marriage equality (and no small amount of pressure from local supporters of equality) Reed’s office sent out this tweet:

“I support same sex marriage and will cosponsor the Respect for Marriage Act. #MarriageEquality #LGBT” (Reed usually initials the tweets he authors himself, so it looks as if although it was written in the first person, it was not written by the senator)

How about that for a change of heart! On Tuesday, he told the Projo he still hadn’t decided whether or not to support marriage equality, then, about 24 hours later, he wants to co-sponsor the legislation!

Still, though, Reed wasn’t doing much bragging about his new position on marriage equality. He was the lone member of the delegation to NOT respond to a request for a statement on the president’s new position. And Reed’s office frequently sends RI Future comments and the like when it comes to other progressive issues such as student loan rates or tax equity.

He did give a comment to the Journal: “I’ve been thinking and deliberating about this for many, many months,” said Reed. “I believe it’s appropriate to support same-sex marriage and as a result to support the Respect for Marriage Act.”

Ray Sullivan, the campaign director for Marriage Equality Rhode Island, thanked Reed for finally supporting equality, saying in a statement:

“We are very grateful to Sen. Reed for adding his voice to the growing chorus of Americans calling for marriage equality. As someone who is respected by members from both sides of the aisle, Sen. Reed’s support for the Respect for Marriage Act will provide significant momentum to the effort to pass this important civil rights legislation. We look forward to working with the senator and all members of Rhode Island’s federal delegation to guarantee equal access and protection under the law for all loving, committed couples.”

Earlier in the day, Sullivan publicly called on Reed to come out for same sex relationship rights, writing:

“Today, President Obama reaffirmed the American ideal that all citizens should be treated equally. It’s been 224 days since Sen. Reed promised to make a decision on this important civil rights issue ‘very shortly.’ With President Obama, Vice President Biden, every other member of our Congressional delegation and a majority of Rhode Islanders all supporting equal rights for LGBTQ citizens, it’s time Sen. Reed told us where he stands.”

And now he has.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this story indicated Reed was the only member of the delegation to respond to a request for comments. It should have read NOT respond.

Posted on

North Carolina Votes for Marriage Inequality


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

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

So Amendment One in North Carolina passed via voter referendum, and it passed overwhelmingly. Simply put, Amendment One criminalizes love.

Not only does it add a ban on the rights of homosexuals to marry (already illegal in North Carolina) to their state constitution, it bans the existence of civil unions between even straight couples. It passed overwhelmingly, 61% in favor to 39% against. Many voters didn’t even know it would impact civil unions.

Having lived in North Carolina for a reasonable amount of time, I can say there are truly people there who have no great love for this amendment. I think it’s fair to say that many hate it. Americans around the country are rightly reviled that such a thing could be written into law. But many others are rejoicing. The last state of the Old Confederacy has been redeemed.

We are often wrongly taught history in themes; we see the United States as possessing the theme of freedom; that at key points in our history (1776, 1862, 1919, 1964) we have pressed for freedom. Not only is this reductive, it is wrong. We must take this time to remind ourselves that the history of this nation is not an unstoppable march to freedom, but a titanic and bloody struggle that we must find the strength to fight. Just as there were no guarantees of victory in 1776, there are no guarantees that tomorrow is brighter than today. It is up to us to carry the fight forward.

For those of us who live outside of North Carolina, we must take this moment to take stock of our own struggle, the struggle to legalize love. The anger we feel at the 61% of North Carolinians who voted for this abominable amendment should be harnessed and directed towards our efforts in our own states. Around the country, there is still much work to be done.

One thing that irks me here is the discussion of the sanctity of marriage. My family hails from various parts of New England, and I am partly descended from Puritan Yankee stock. And ironically, for the Puritans, who are known as the most religious of the English settlers, marriage was not particularly sanctified. Most Puritans were married by the magistrate, not by a minister. It was a contract between two adults recognized by the community; and indeed, in many ways, this has been written into law. Marriage is a contract.

And this where the “sanctity of marriage” argument falls apart for me (though admittedly it was always weak to me as an atheist). If you get married in a chapel, your marriage isn’t real unless there’s a representative of the state to hand you a marriage certificate. It’s not the priest who marries you, it’s the state. Marriage is a state institution. And for a state to hand out preferential rights on the basis of declared sexual orientation; well it doesn’t make much sense to me. To the state, what difference does it make?

The idea that marriage can be gay or straight makes about as much sense as the building of the State House being gay or straight. It makes as much sense as declaring that sidewalks are gay or straight. Or declaring the entire institution of government to be gay or straight. It knows no sexual orientation. It knows no religious denomination. It cannot worship. It cannot love. It cannot cry out in despair.

North Carolina’s Amendment One could be one of two things. It could be a supernova of intolerance; burning brightly at its end. Or it could be the beginning of a turning backwards. Record numbers of Americans support the rights of their fellow Americans to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. But there are no guarantees in history. If we want something, we must strive for it.

Posted on

RI Progress Report: URI Profs File Suit, West Warwick, Tar Heels on Marriage Equality, Doherty and US Chamber


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

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

URI professors have filed a lawsuit against the state saying the Board of Governors for Higher Education broke the law when they declined to ratify a contract they had already agreed to after Gov. Chafee weighed in on the matter. Profs may win in court, but in order to win in the court of public opinion they will have to make the case that the state isn’t adequately funding the state’s premier university.

Ted Nesi writes an excellent story about West Warwick’s budget problems. What he doesn’t mention is that the state cut some $6.25 million from the struggling city in the last three budget cycles.

The Projo editorial board writes that the socialists electoral victory in Europe “demonstrated that a slim majority of the French (and a larger majority of the Europeans in general) want more public spending and other actions to stimulate the economy and cut unemployment.” We’ll see if they draw the same conclusion about the United States this October.

It’ll be hard for Brendan Doherty to parse himself as a moderate when the uber-conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce is running ads in Rhode Island on his behalf.

North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment that bans all forms of same sex legal relationship rights. Congrats, Tar Heel state, your intolerance is unmatched.

And in Indiana, Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party candidate who beat longtime Senate moderate Richard Lugar in a primary yesterday, said he doesn’t believe in bipartisanship.

Conservative Rep. Jon Brien says he’ll support a supplemental tax increase for Woonsocket.

If you’re surprised that Rhode Island gives away $1.6 billion in tax breaks, you haven’t been reading RI Future. We reported this yesterday.

Posted on

RI Progress Report: Austerity, URI Contracts, Police Unions


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

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

The Board of Governors for Higher Education meet tonight to decide whether or not to give raises to URI professors, and two other faculty unions, as tuition continues to skyrocket for students. The meeting is at 5:30 tonight, at CCRI’s Warwick campus, and according to the Projo, the professor’s union plans to bus faculty to the meeting. Gov. Chafee has lobbied against the raises. Tom Sgouros wrote an in-depth analysis of the debate back in early April.

The Providence Police Union plans to protest future fundrasiers for Mayor Angel Taveras. In an email obtained by WPRI, they write: “Be prepared to participate and stand your ground as this is going to be the biggest fight ever.”

Understatement of the day: “Rhode Island manufacturing may face uncertain future”. This is the headline on RI Public Radio’s brief announcing the series its launching this week on the the decline of manufacturing in the Ocean State.

It’s an austerity effort that would only make sense in East Greenwich. The proposed town budget would cut money to the Teen Center, a Friday night tradition (since, at least, I was in high school some 20 years ago) where local youths are offered an athletic alternative to the even longer local tradition of binge drinking. The budget protects taxpayer funding for the annual Summer’s End concert – the recently-started tradition of having the RI Philharmonic play a downtown concert. The former happens every Friday night and helps local teens avoid drinking and driving. The latter happens one Friday night of the year and offers adults (and others?) an opportunity to bring their own booze to a downtown party accompanied by classical music.

And in an austerity protest that would only make sense to Rep. Dan Gordon, he ended his tax protest on April 20 and filed his income taxes … the self-proclaimed libertarian reports he got a $331 refund from the state.

As Samuel G. Howard predicted yesterday, austerity will no longer be the de facto policy of European nations. According to the New York Times this morning: “After elections in France and Greece punished leaders advocating austerity, Europeans on Monday contemplated a new and untested political landscape shaped by competing demands for austerity on one hand to counter the debt crisis and growth on the other to avert further deprivation.

Vice President Joe Biden endorsed marriage equality on Sunday … though the White House wishes he hadn’t.

 

Posted on

Foes of Marriage Equality Fear God, Communists


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

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

It’s both sad and bizarre the logic used by the religious right to argue against marriage equality. Even more sad and bizarre, of course, is that Rhode island legislators aren’t brave enough to flout the ridiculous arguments proffered by the opposition and grant same sex couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

Consider why Rev. Jay Stirnemann of the Christ Temple United Pentecostal Church in Tiverton doesn’t think gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else:

This might be what Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and Rep. Doc Corvese, both Democrats who have fought against marriage equality, believe but it doesn’t seem to hold water with me. So I asked Rev. Stirnemann, if god created marriage, why animals don’t wed. Here’s what he told me:

Miraculously, his was not the most outlandish reason offered at a State House hearing last night on why legislators should reject marriage equality. That distinction goes to Chris Young, who said gay marriage is a secret plot by communists in the United States to end procreation. He even offered a picture that he said showed Russian troops training inside the United States to prove his point.

Of course, most sane people know this isn’t true. Even probably most legislators realize this too. The reason they won’t support marriage equality is not because they fear the wrath of god or communists, but rather they fear the wrath of voters who fear the wrath of god or communists.

It’s almost equally sad and bizarre that anyone who can get elected to the General Assembly doesn’t realize that this very vocal minority in no way, shape or form is at all indicative of Rhode Island in general. And even if they were, I certainly wouldn’t want my legislative legacy to include standing with Chris Young and Rev. Jay Stirnemann.

Rhode Island politicians should instead stand for reason and equal protection under the law and pass same sex marriage.

Posted on

Ending Discrimination Starts with Equal Protection of Law


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

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

My friend Jon was a vibrant, kind and wonderful person. He loved music and dancing. He never ceased to make me laugh with silly jokes and goofy impressions of movie stars. I could always count on him to be there when I needed him, whether it was to help me move, or hold my hand when I was scared or sad.

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

Posted on

Corvese Amendment Denies Rep. Ferri Equal Rights


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Rep. Frank Ferri testifies next to Rep. Doc Corvese.

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.

Posted on

Bishop Tobin on Gay Marriage: Not Christ Like


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

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

In a not-very-Christ-like op-ed piece titled “Five Problems With Homosexual Marriage,” the leader of the Catholic Church in Rhode Island reaffirmed his objections to same sex relationship equality.

“It’s a sure sign of spring, as predictable as the Red Sox at spring training, the swallows returning to Capistrano, and the flowing of green beer on St. Patrick’s Day,” wrote Bishop Thomas Tobin. “I’m referring of course to the public re-appearance of the determined proponents of homosexual marriage.”

Yeah, nothing says warmer weather to come like people fighting for equal protection under the law. Most unfortunately, when it comes to the Catholic Church, it seems that hate springs eternal.

Not to fear though, Rev. Gene Dyszlewkski, chair of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition in Support of Marriage Equality quickly shot back.

“No Christian I know believes in discrimination,” he said in a statement rebuking the Bishop. “No Christian I know thinks it’s OK to deny basic human rights to a minority class of citizens. I think Bishop Tobin would do well to remember that. These continued attacks on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters only further perpetuate the notion that some religious leaders are out of touch with members of their faith.”

Posted on

MERI testifies at Board of Elections Hearings about Voter ID


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

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

Rhode Island’s controversial new voter identification law goes into effect with this year’s election, and MERI has been actively working to make the process less challenging to our community, particularly transgendered individuals who could face unnecessary hinderances and potential disenfranchisement.

This afternoon, MERI  appeared in front of the Rhode Island Board of Elections and presented  testimony voicing concern that the new voter ID law has the potential to put at risk the voting rights for the 2,000 to 10,000 transgender Rhode Islanders. We raised similar concerns at a hearing with the Secretary of State’s office last December.

Our testimony today focused on the proposed rules and regulations in the voter ID law as they stand and discussed their potential to place these individuals in an unwelcoming or hostile environment—an environment that is incongruous with the ideals of fairness and democracy that are supposed to define the voting process.

For example, while an individual’s identification could list one gender, that individual may be in the process of transitioning or may not wholly identify with their documented gender. Furthermore, the individual’s identification could list a name not traditionally associated with their gender at the time of voting. Such identification discrepancy could prompt a poll worker to initiate an awkward or embarrassing conversation that could bring the individual unnecessary and uncomfortable attention. Transgender individuals may be discouraged from even going to the polls for fear of being outed publicly.

But the dangers of the voter ID law on transgender people reach even beyond the possibility of discomfort or disenfranchisement to include the threat or act of physical violence. As many of us know, transgender people face extraordinarily levels of both verbal and physical violence in their everyday lives. The chance of public outing at polling places makes these sites especially susceptible to anti-transgender violence, and the mere possibility of such violence could demotivate transgender citizens from voting at all.

Although everyone should be able to vote at their local polling place free from fear and intimidation, the General Counsel for the Board of Elections wanted to make sure we knew we could vote by mail.  Members of the Board of Election appreciated our testimony and want to work with us moving forward to ensure the poll workers are properly trained. We’ll keep you updated on our progress.

Also, thanks to one of our Spring Fellowship students, Simon, for all of his hard work on this issue!

Posted on

One More Step Toward Prop 8’s Doom


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

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

In the summer of 2010, when I skimmed Judge Walker’s ruling on Prop 8, I said, “It’s all over but the crying.” The 9th Circuit’s decision on February 7, 2012 was another inevitable move in the legal end-game of marriage equality.

I also predicted that the US Supreme Court would decline to hear the case. I’m sticking to my guns. Here’s why…

Walker’s Opinion Mostly Not an Opinion

The bulk of Walker’s opinion is not an opinion at all; it consists of findings of fact. And they are crushing. In order for a law to treat different classes of people differently, the legislating body must demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. In this case, the basic argument that “traditional marriage” should be upheld is based primarily on religious concepts that have no standing in a court of law. By the “traditional” reasoning, segregation should have been allowed to continue; it’s the way it had always been in the South.

Similarly, the argument that homosexuality is a personal choice also had no evidentiary support. Nor did the assertion that children are better off with opposite-sex parents.

In fact, nothing that the defendants brought to the table passed muster. It was a rout.

The Juriprudence is Clear

Many, many cases along these basic lines have been heard in the US Federal Courts, producing a wealth of precedents on which Walker could base his ruling. The main precedent here is Brown vs Board of Education, which ruled that “separate but equal is inherently unequal”.

Brown had overturned Plessy vs Ferguson, a late 19th century decision that allowed for segregation so long as states provided equal facilities. Brown found that the act of separation invariably produced unequal results. The bar for creating distinct legal classes is exceptionally high.

I should note that the dissenter in the 9th Circuit’s decision did say, “The optimal parenting rationale could conceivably be a legitimate governmental interest”. This argument was clearly refuted in Walker’s findings of facts and, while I haven’t read the dissent, it would be a pretty big deal if the appellate court were to overrule a finding of fact.

It’s all in the language. “Could conceivably…” Not a particularly ringing endorsement. It’s like he needed to throw the anti-equality side a bone.

Walker’s Sexuality Not an Issue

The 9th Circuit also found nothing in the argument that Walker’s sexuality had biased his opinion. That is such a legal loser that it’s just laughable. By that logic, nobody could have ruled on Brown vs Board because they were all either white or black!

Like the dissent’s weak tea with the optimal parenting line, this is a sign of increasing desperation from the anti-equality camp. Here’s why they’re desperate…

US Supreme Court Won’t Hear This Case

This is actually an easy call, because it’s a no-win situation for the court. If they take this case, they have two basic options, 1) uphold marriage equality with a Federal precedent that will instantly obsolete all other state efforts in to ban same-sex marriages or 2) be the court that overturned Brown vs Board of Education. Neither of those two things will occur.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, this is a spectacularly political and activist court. The conservative forces are out to put their stamp on the jurisprudence and pull the court back from what they see as an overreaching authority. If the Scalito brothers thought for one hot second that they could uphold this blatantly unconstitutional ban without overturning Brown, they would. But they can’t, and they know it.

And they’ll be damned if they’re going to put their seal of approval on marriage equality. They’ll be happy to watch years of legal shenanigans as state after state goes through this same process with this same result. Perhaps they’re hoping that other facts will be found or some new legal argument will be invented to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in creating this class of citizens with limited rights. That also is not going to happen.

The most likely outcome is that the court will refuse to hear the case. It will sting the anti-equality camp, no doubt, but it will leave them to fight another day. I suppose it’s possible that the court will use some obscure option to hear the case without having to rule or something like that. It seems virtually impossible that this US Supreme Court will rule on this case.

So cry all you want, Righty. It’s over.

 

Posted on

Have You Seen the New Freedom From Religion Foundation Billboard?

The Madison, WI-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has put up a 14 by 48 foot billboard on Interstate 295 at Route 2 in Warwick.  This is the first billboard by the organization in Rhode Island, but the 695th in 61 cities since 2007.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation co-president, said it’s fitting that the campaign has expanded to Rhode Island, which was founded by Roger Williams, a strong advocate of keeping religion out of government and vice versa.

“Although Williams was a religious man, he believed deeply that civil and sectarian authorities should not intrude on each other, for the good of both,” Gaylor said.

She noted Williams’ famous statement that “forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God.”

The billboard’s message is abundantly clear, based on a form of governance that seems to be continually distorted.  The Founding Fathers may have been Deists, and most of them held some sort of belief in a god, in whatever way that was personally defined.  Anything more than that, and in particular anything related to the national government’s support of a specific religion, was out of the question.  The Founding Fathers were fearful of unrestrained government power, and particularly a government that would impose religion on its people.

Many clear examples exist that support this, including our very own Roger Williams, founder of the Providence Plantations colony in 1636, who was a “.”  This was all due to him needing to flee Massachusetts by challenging the political and religious establishments, claiming government had no role in religion and that the Massachusetts Colony was not even legitimate since the land was stolen from Native Americans.

The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams in 1797 reads:

…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…

In Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802), he wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. “

Another stellar example was James Madison’s response to Jasper Adams’ pamphlet (a graduate of Brown University), The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States, in which he wrote:

In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts.

In most of the Govt of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.

To put this in perspective, we just have to look at the conspicuous moralism that often accompanies religious-based “discussions” in Rhode Island, such as those about a tree in the State House Rotunda, being pro-choice, or supporting marriage equality.  As examples, in each of these cases, Bishop Tobin was compelled to express his displeasure, not as an individual, but as a representative of the Catholic Church.  As that representative, he holds quite a bit of power over the shaping of political decisions, whether it be exacerbating an uproar over the name of a tree, excoriating former Representative Patrick Kennedy, hindering the expansion of health care coverage, and preventing full marriage equality (which is as clear of a case as I could imagine that creates a government-sponsored, special privilege for religion).

I do think having a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of any policy are important.  And arguments will be based on individuals’ worldviews.  But there can often be overt religiosity that tries to pass itself for reasonable debate….

And that’s just not right.


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