Saturday, December 8, 2007

Rhode Island Gay Couples Can Marry, Not Divorce

Cross-Posted from Hat Thief

There's been a big setback for equal rights in the state of Rhode Island.

As you may recall, last year, the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that Rhode Island couples could get married in Massachusetts, because "No evidence was introduced ... from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage."

Earlier this year, a greater victory came when the Rhode Island Attorney General issued the following statement: "Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in Massachusetts as marriages in Rhode Island,"

But yesterday, this advance hit a setback, with the following ruling:

In a 3-to-2 decision, the court ruled that it was up to the legislature, not the court, to determine whether same-sex marriages and divorces would be recognized in Rhode Island.

The court said its role was “not to determine policy, but simply to determine legislative intent.”

The ruling said, “The General Assembly has not granted the Family Court the power to grant a divorce in the situation described.”

I fully support this ruling, and I think it's our highest priority to extend it to prohibit divorce among opposite-sex couples as a stopgap measure to prevent the destruction of marriage.

I have two legislative proposals to help that happen.

First of all, the Defense of Marriage Act must be amended by adding the following provisions:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a divorce, even if the divorce was concluded or recognized in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not recognize divorce for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

This will help preserve marriage from the secular progressives who want to destroy it.

And it'll be a huge below to the feminists, who, as the extremely Reverend Pat Robertson notes, are nearly as big of a danger to our country, and are also big divorce fans

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Second of all, the House of Representatives must immediately move on Lincoln Davis(D-TN) proposal to protect the sacred insitution of marriage.

Representative Lincoln Davis
Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment.
And, Mr. Speaker, I personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can commit. This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.

We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on CSPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts. An elected official should certainly lead by example.

Granted, if this passes, it'll be a big blow to the presidential campaigns of Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, but that's a small price to pay for saving marriage.

No comments: