RI ACLU: New civil-union law 'a fiasco;' gay marriage better

[w8liftinglady]

http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/09/ri-aclu-new-civil-union-law-a.html

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Gay and lesbian couples haven't been rushing to obtain civil union status under Rhode Island's new law, causing the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union to call the law "a fiasco" in a report issued Monday.

The Rhode Island ACLU blames the poor response on the need for "true marriage equality legislation."

"It is difficult to think of another civil rights bill that has generated so much attention, yet done so little for so few," the organization says in a news release announcing the 22-page report, "Two Months of Civil Unions in Rhode Island: Already Time for a Divorce?"

Since the law was enacted, the ACLU said, 14 gay and lesbian couples have sought "civil union" status. In its review of licensing statistics in a dozen other states, the ACLU found "no other state that has passed a law formally recognizing gay and lesbian couples has seen such a paltry and lackluster response to its passage."

The report cites at least three major reasons why couples are shunning the new statute: the inclusion of "an incredibly broad 'religious' exemption" that significantly undercuts the law's purpose; the dashed expectation that, after 12 years of effort, a vote on a marriage bill would finally take place this year; and the prevalence of marriage states throughout New England, where "Rhode Islanders can travel a few hours in just about any direction and be in a state that, unlike their own, recognizes full marriage equality."

[RKP5637]

1. K&R !!! n/t

[racaulk]

2. Democrats have supermajorities in both chambers of the RI state legislature.

76% control in the Senate, 87% control in the House. Governor Chafee has also promised to sign a marriage equality bill if one is presented to him.

But the Congressional leadership there believe there isn't enough support to pass a marriage equality bill, even with the inclusion of (completely unnecessary) religious exemptions? Pffftt. That doesn't pass the smell test to me.

This civil unions bill is a watered down disaster. I'm glad the gays and lesbians there aren't falling for it.

K&R

[customerserviceguy]

3. I'm curious about the religious exemption you mention

We have one as part of the NY marriage equality law, and it doesn't seem to have had much effect here. Is this law significantly different in RI than in NY?

I can't imagine that same-gender couples would have too much trouble finding clergy who would perform a ceremony in RI. If their own faith tradition won't do it, then why are they still members of that church?

[julian09]

4. Civil ceremony is all that is needed.

RI is a very catholic state, maybe legislators are intimidated. How many actually are practicing catholics?

[RetiredTrotskyite]

6. Yes, But the Haters...

don't want us to have even that. I suspect that the low turnout will be used to show that we really don't want to commit to one another.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

5. It's the New Rage

that exemptions have to be spelled out in law for the bigots so they can figure out a way to discriminated and show their contempt for us yet be able to get away with it legally.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Still

what's the point in trying to force a Baptist church to marry a same-gender couple? It would be like forcing the Catholic church to marry divorced Catholics who didn't go through the annulment dog-and-pony show.

Let the bigots stew in their own ignorance, while the rest of the world moves past them.

[yardwork]

8. We've explained this to you before. No church can ever be forced to perform a marriage.

I'm surprised that you are posting this false information again here, since you were corrected in several detailed threads when you first started posting this.

Read our lips: The U.S. Constitution (First Amendment) protects every single church in this country from ever having to perform any religious ceremony to anybody. Period. Full Stop. No ifs ands or buts.

Nobody ever is going to ever attempt to force a Baptist church to marry anybody. Can't, won't happen.

All marriages are civil contracts. The county provides a marriage license. The couple takes that and gets somebody to marry them. That somebody can be any who is authorized to perform marriages - a justice of the peace, a clerk of court, a judge, a riverboat captain, a priest, a minister, etc. Whether the marriage happens in the hallway of the county courthouse, a Catholic Church, a bed and breakfast in upstate New York is totally immaterial to the legality of the marriage.

The choice of a religious ceremony is totally optional and makes absolutely no difference one way or the other to the legality of the marriage. Gay people are not trying to get any church to agree to marry them. We're trying to get the legal rights of marriage that are granted to all straight couples. That's it.

[tomfodw]

9. Well said!

The bigots don't have the law, the facts, or the equities on their side. All they have left is hate- and fear-mongering. Which, sadly, are all too often all they need...

[Unvanguard]

10. The RI one is much broader and vastly worse.

Every state with same-sex marriage exempts clergy from having to perform marriages they don't want to perform. (Clergy are always exempted from performing marriages they don't want to perform: it's a constitutional right that no one wants to do away with.) Every same-sex marriage law passed by a legislature also exempts religious institutions from providing facilities or other resources for the solemnization of same-sex marriages. The New York law does roughly those two things.

So does the Rhode Island law. But the RI law also gives religious institutions a right to categorically ignore people's civil union status if they don't want to recognize it. It could mean, for instance, that religious employers don't have to offer family leave for their employees in civil unions, or religious hospitals don't have to recognize the next-of-kin rights of civil union spouses.